Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order as it conflicts with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Amendment No. 2, in the name of Senator McDowell, has been ruled out of order as it conflicts with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

I have to accept the ruling, which I have been not been notified of, by the way.

Letters went out. I signed them earlier today.

Today? It did not get to me. I am just making that point. I am taken by surprise by that ruling. I do not understand why a commencement section is somehow out of order when it is specified that such a change should be made. I will not call a vote on the section, but I am very much taken aback by that ruling.

The Bill was guillotined through the Dáil, and we now find ourselves dealing with it in this House.

There are provisions in section 126 of the Bill that are an integral part of the border procedure aspects of the migration pact. Section 126 is part of the asylum border procedure. We have been told that this Bill is going to dramatically change and accelerate the circumstances in which asylum applications are dealt with. Unless Ireland is in a position to operate the border procedure, this Bill and our adherence to the pact are, by virtue of the common travel area, almost set at naught. I would like the Minister to explain to the House how the asylum border procedure will operate in Ireland and who will be caught by it. Is it somebody crossing the Border at Carrickarnon in County Louth? Is it somebody who appears in Dublin and claims asylum? When does the asylum border procedure actually become available to the Irish State?

Before I call the Minister, I welcome to the Gallery Mrs Bridget Walsh, who recently celebrated a significant birthday, her 90th. She is joined by her family members. They are guests of our colleague Senator Imelda Goldsboro, so I take it they are all from Tipperary. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House. I congratulate Ms Walsh on her recent significant birthday.

I thank Senator McDowell for his question. I will state at the outset that I recognise the Committee Stage amendments before the Seanad represent a considerable body of work. The Senator mentioned the fact that the Bill was guillotined in Dáil Éireann. That is correct, but there was extensive debate nonetheless on Second Stage. I think we debated for three days on Second Stage. There was also Committee Stage, which was truncated, and Report Stage.

It is true that not just Ireland but all the other countries in the European Union that have agreed to sign up to the regulations and directives to harmonise systems of migration are under time pressure to get this body of work in place. I believe it will be to the benefit of Ireland in the long run if there is a harmonised system of asylum law across the overwhelming part of the EU that has agreed to transpose the pact into domestic legislation.

I will say, just to cover myself in respect of future things, that there will be some additional matters that I will have to bring forward on Report Stage. Those include data sharing; matters relating to the collection of fingerprint data from applicants; some amendments arising from the new Part 4 on reception conditions and Part 5 on restrictions of freedom of movement in detention; the repeal of section 20 of the 2015 Act, which deals with detention under the Act; provision for the monitoring of accommodation centres; amendments to the Child Care Act 1991, the Children First Act 2015 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012; matters relating to permission of applicants to enter or remain; some minor technical amendments to section 156, which deals with the withdrawal of international protection; and clarification of the provisions of the Bill relating to superannuation.

Senator McDowell raised an issue in respect of his amendment, which is an amendment in respect of section 126 of the Bill. That section deals with restrictions on freedom of movement during asylum border procedure. The Senator's question is how the asylum border procedure is going to be applied from 12 June onwards.

I can tell him that this process is already ongoing because since last year, my Department has already begun to operate elements of the new asylum border procedure and to transition gradually to fully implementing the pact. This transition is being undertaken within the framework of the International Protection Act 2015. To begin this transition, new pact readiness teams were established in June 2025 and operations began in the Citywest reception centre. The phased approach has enabled my Department to test the ability of the international protection system in its entirety to process cases within the required timeframe of the future asylum border procedure and to make adjustments where necessary. This work has allowed my Department to identify pressure points and practical challenges across the process to create new standard operating procedures and to set out future training needs. The type of cases that are being dealt with at present under the pilot project, which is seeking to implement what the pact will look like, involve applications from safe countries and applications where the acceptance level is less than 20%. They are the type of cases that will be dealt with subsequently under the expedited procedures once the new legislation comes into effect on 12 June.

Senator McDowell's amendment, which has been ruled out of order, concerns section 126 of the Bill. Just so that people are aware, it is my intention that section 126 will come into operation on 12 June. The formal designation under section 126(1) of a premises as a location for the asylum border procedure will be done and operational with effect from 12 June. Senator McDowell's proposal, which was ruled out of order, proposed a positive resolution of each House of the Oireachtas should be required to approve any commencement order. I do not believe that such a provision is necessary since any commencement order can be made under section 1 of the Bill.

I thank the Minister for his brief answer - at least for the brevity of it - but as I read section 117, which concerns the asylum border procedure, the Minister is entitled to apply-----

We are on section 1 at the moment.

Yes but I believe this is relevant. The Minister is entitled to apply the border procedure in the circumstances set out in subsection 2 of that section. They are the only circumstances in which it can be done. It seems to me that with the exception of paragraph (a), paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are not really relevant to the claims made by the Government that this is going to massively speed up the investigation and decision-making process because the asylum border procedure can only take place following an application made at an external border crossing point or in a transit zone. The Minister has gone on record to say that the great majority of asylum applications are made by people who have transited into the State via the United Kingdom. What is an external border crossing? Who are these people who are to be caught by Chapter 6 of the Bill?

We are being told that this is urgent and that Ireland has to do this by 12 June but this is completely unworkable if it does not apply to people who turn up in Dublin, having availed of the common travel area to get in here. I am asking the Minister to explain to whom the asylum order procedure and the 12-week limit on determining asylum applications, as provided for in Chapter 6, is going to apply. Is it going to somebody who arrives at Carrickarnon where there used to be a border post and is foolish enough to apply in that place for asylum or is this entirely illusory?

Is the public being fed a completely distorted view that this legislation somehow speeds up the asylum procedure when, in fact, the speeded-up process, under Chapter 6, will not apply to people who cross the Border, come to Dublin and ask for asylum in Dublin? Is my understanding correct or incorrect on that? This goes to the heart of this Bill. If it is the case that the people have been told, as they have been, that the migration pact gives this State the opportunity to dramatically speed up the treatment of asylum applications and that there will be a 12-week limit - we have not even talked about judicial review - and if the Minister is not in a position to tell this House that the great majority of asylum applicants will not be capable of being dealt with under it because they will not have made an application at a Border crossing point, then, while the urgency of this is being spun as a reason to rush it through, the reality is that the Irish people have been sold a pup.

Hear, hear.

They have been told that this migration pact was the answer to all our problems and would speed things up, whereas, as far as I know, none of the people who travel through the UK has ever, at Carrickarnon or anywhere else on the Border, applied for asylum. This goes to the heart of the matter. The public is told this is a miracle solution to all of our problems because all of these people to whom this procedure applies will be dealt with in 12 weeks. However, they will not because the courts will be invoked almost immediately, I am sure. Even if we leave out the courts, my understanding is that we are dealing here with a procedure that is not available if somebody just applies in Dublin. I ask the Minister to give a yes or no answer to this question. Is someone who crosses the Border from the United Kingdom and applies for asylum in Dublin capable or not of being dealt with under the asylum border procedure and does or does not the 12-week examination period apply to such people?

I remind Members that I have allowed Senator McDowell to comment on amendment No. 2 because it was in his name but it has been ruled out of order. The Minister will reply and I will then put the question, "That section 1 stand part of the Bill". I call the Minister.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach very kindly informed me that a letter had been sent to me.

It was sent, yes.

It arrived at lunchtime while I was doing other business. That is the notice I got of the ruling of the Chair.

On a point of clarification, I want to speak to amendment No. 1.

We have already discussed amendment No. 1.

Were amendments Nos. 1 and 2 grouped together?

No, they are two different amendments.

Can we speak?

Can we speak to the section?

I will ask the Minister to respond first.

I thank Senator McDowell for his contribution. There are two types of procedure here. I know Senator McDowell is interested in the asylum border procedure but in order to give a full answer to this, I have to make Senators aware of what is provided in section 115, which concerns accelerated examination procedure. There is an accelerated examination procedure and there is an asylum border procedure. Both procedures have to be done on an expedited basis. If Senators look at section 115, they will see it sets out a series of individuals who will be covered by the accelerated examination procedure. They include, for instance, that a third country may be considered to be a safe country of origin for the applicant, the application is a subsequent application which is not inadmissible or there are grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security. There is, therefore, an accelerated examination procedure that operates under section 115.

There is then also an asylum border procedure set out in Chapter 6. Section 117 sets out the conditions for applying the asylum border procedure. In that section, "external border crossing point" is the basis upon which there is an asylum border procedure.

It is also important to recall that under section 117(5) an "external border crossing point" also means a port or a screening centre. A screening centre is a place where applicants will be sent for the purpose of having their applications assessed. The circumstances in which an application must be examined in the asylum border procedure includes where an applicant has intentionally misled the authorities by providing false documents or information or where in an application, the recognition rate is less than 20%. Procedures will be available to the determining authority, which is me and my officials. It is up to us to determine first-instance applications. Decisions will be made in advance of 12 June as to which type of applications will be dealt with by the asylum border procedure and indeed the accelerated procedure.

Obviously, everything cannot be accelerated. If everything is accelerated, we will not be able to accelerate the ones that merit it. These are the ones that we think we can process quickly. The legislation gives the basis upon which those different types of procedures can be applied. The effect of them is to expedite the applications to get quick determinations. As I said in my first response to Senator McDowell, at present we are operating the system, as it will operate after 12 June, on a pilot basis. We are operating it for those countries that are designated in Ireland as safe countries. We are also operating it for countries such as Nigeria. We are getting an expedited processing of those applications within the periods set down in the legislation. I know Senator McDowell's concern relates to how we are going to be able to deal with this, since we are not able to process them quickly at present. In fact, we are able to process those applications that are now being dealt with on a pilot basis as accelerated or asylum border procedure within the period that is, in total, six months between first instance, secondary appeal decision and then deportation order. We are getting deportation orders signed or we are getting people accepted within the process within the time periods set out in the Bill.

I am conscious there may be concern on the part of Senators as to whether it will work effectively and in accordance with the timelines set out. I believe it will. Ultimately, we will only be able to see that once the commencement starts on 12 June. The trial procedure operating at present with the pilot projects is being done within the time periods set out in the legislation.

I will respond to the comments by the Minister. He has indicated his intention to bring substantial new amendments on Report Stage, covering such important topics as permissions to enter or remain and questions of detention, monitoring and data sharing. These are very substantive. They are not minor or technical amendments but rather substantive, core topics. We have just been told that they will be introduced as Report Stage amendments, but of course in the Seanad that means the very last Stage, effectively. By its nature, that could end up precluding proper scrutiny. I have to note that in terms of parliamentary practice, we have had 70 pages of amendments from the Government added on Committee Stage. They came at 5 p.m. on a Friday, after the deadline for us to submit amendments was 11 a.m. that day. This effectively precluded proper scrutiny. Now we have just been told that more amendments will be added on Report Stage. I would like clarity and confirmation, first of all, that any proposed Report Stage amendments will be published a number of days in advance to allow for a number of days for the amendment of these proposed Report Stage amendments. I would suggest that the Bill should not move forward to Report Stage until after these have been properly shared and circulated and given a substantial number of days. With respect, Saturdays and Sundays do not count. To get it on a Friday and be told that we can get our amendments in first thing on a Monday effectively precluded Senators from engaging with the 70 pages of Government amendments on Committee Stage. I am very concerned that we seem to be being teed up for a repeat of that on Report Stage and I want to signal right now that I believe it is unacceptable. There has to be a proper timeframe and some modicum of respect for parliamentary oversight and proper parliamentary scrutiny brought back into this process.

I thank the Minister. It is good to see him back in the House today. I support Senator Michael McDowell. I do not believe this will work, the reason being the current backlog in this country. There are over 20,000 people in the system who are awaiting a decision on their international protection application. Let us not just look at Ireland. Let us look at what is happening in the EU. Austria's backlog stands at 22,530. Belgium's backlog is a staggering 58,785. Bulgaria's backlog is 1,630 and the backlog in Cyprus is 23,225. Czechia's backlog stands at 625, while Denmark's backlog, which has been significantly reduced, is 2,465. Finland's backlog is 4,206. France's backlog is an extraordinary 153,090 and Germany, Europe's bellwether, has 306,000 applications pending. Greece's backlog is 31,945, Italy's backlog, and this is really important-----

I ask the Seanadóir to confine her remarks to the section, please.

I am speaking on the section. Italy's backlog is 234,000. Luxembourg has a backlog of 4,195, while Malta has 1,415 applications pending. The Netherlands has 63,240 applications pending, while Poland has a backlog of 12,775. In Portugal, the figure is 8,595, in Romania it is 295, while in Slovakia it is 90 and in Slovenia it is 1,480. Spain has 248,780 applications pending and in Sweden the backlog is 5,050. To summarise, the backlog in Europe at this moment stands at 1.3 million applications pending. These numbers are not fluctuations or arbitrations. These are the reality of the system we are now locking ourselves into.

The crucial point is that these very figures are the total European caseload that the Commission will use to determine the future reallocations, the future solidarity contributions and Ireland's future obligations. When we look at these figures side by side, we begin to see that, in practice, the pact means that Ireland, with limited infrastructure, a distinct common travel area and a housing system that is already under strain, will now be expected to take annual allocations calculated not on our real capacity but on the distorted GDP numbers and the overwhelming pressures across the Continent. That is what this boils down to.

These are horrendous figures. The Minister is going to tell us and this country that this will be a very quick system and will only take 12 weeks. We need to be realistic here. It will not be sorted in 12 weeks.

I call Senator Boyhan on the section. For the information of Members, section 1 is about deleting the Title of the Bill.

This is a broader opportunity for Senators to comment briefly on the Bill. I welcome the Minister to the House. I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for its comprehensive paper on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It is disappointing to note how little of that was taken on board. We can talk about that as we go through the Bill. I do not know what advice the Minister got but there are elements peppered through the Bill that I intend to bring up on various Stages, if the Bill is not guillotined. I do not know if the Minister has made a decision on that. Has he set down in his diary that he intends to guillotine the Bill this week? He guillotined it in the Dáil, which was very disappointing. The Government has a huge majority and can effectively do anything. The Minister believes in parliamentary democracy and is an amazing practitioner of it, as well as being a senior counsel, so he is well able to think and stand on his feet. I always commend him on that.

I will make a few points. That amendments were ruled out of order is not a good start. I am conscious of the capacity in this legislation to deal with what the Minister is setting out to achieve. I do not agree with everything he is attempting to do and I will tease that out in a respectful manner, which is the appropriate way to do things in these Houses.

I draw the Minister's attention to a judicial review in the High Court. He will be very familiar with this case. It is the High Court judicial review 2023/209 JR [2026] IEHC 90.

It concerns a directive of the 2013/33 European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018. The Minister for Children, Equality and Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General were the respondents. The Minister will know in that case that compensation was awarded to the two individuals anonymised in the findings of the judicial review publication for good reason. The State was found to have failed to meet certain obligations that we are bound to and have signed up to, and that is an important point. The Minister is now introducing legislation that will be very significant and seeks to put in place a new EU framework to manage migration and asylum in the long term, to ensure that Ireland's policy aligns with other EU countries, regardless of what we might think of them, and to replace the International Protection Act 2015.

I read the press release issued when the Minister announced that he had Government approval to proceed with the Bill. He said its stated objective was to provide a fair, efficient and robust asylum procedure that is consistent with asylum laws. I refer to a reception in Kerry attended by the Minister for new citizens and people coming into this country who had signed up to pledge allegiance to the State and were welcomed. The Minister spoke very eloquently on that occasion. I did not attend, but because I had heard so much about it I took the time to get the script from his Department. He spoke about the Constitution, and about the harp and what it symbolises. He had analogies about tradition, music and melody, and how proud people could be to be Irish citizens. It was very moving and I want to genuinely acknowledge and congratulate the Minister on his speech. Some weeks and months later, I heard other statements he made in the House and began to think there was a slight drift from those remarks. I may need further clarification. I will not rush to judgment, but what he said in Kerry is somewhat inconsistent with remarks he has made since then.

In his press release announcing the Bill, the Minister said the Government fundamentally believes in the right to claim asylum and will always uphold our obligations on this important principle of international law for those who need our protection. That is fantastic. At the same time, the press release went on to say that the Minister recognises that our current system for processing international protection applications could be more efficient, faster and less costly. It also stated that the International Protection Bill will reset our international protection system; streamline decisions and returns processes; introduce a new border procedure, with a three-month time limit for decisions, appeals and return orders in appropriate cases; and create a new body, the tribunal of asylum returns appeals, TARA, which I welcome. He said that the Bill will also establish a new chief inspector of asylum border procedures and an independent rights monitor, which I welcome. The press release went on to say that these reforms will continue to ensure the rights of the applicant under EU and Irish law.

My biggest concern is children. The Minister and Attorney General have said they are developing measures to be included in the Bill to give effect to proposals approved by the Government on 26 November 2025, namely that adults who are beneficiaries of international protection will not be entitled to seek family reunification for a period of three years following the granting of international protection. I have some concerns about that. We have obligations. We talk about the uniqueness of children. There cannot be any less favourable support or any conditionality attached to children inside or outside of the State once they are within the State, not necessarily legally. In this State, we have a moral obligation to protect children who could have come here through any guise, possibly unknown to themselves, and who have had no hand, act or part in their coming here. We have a moral obligation and that will be a central theme of my contribution to the Bill.

I understand we need clarity. I understand we need consistency. I understand we need fairness. "Robustness" is not always a word I like to use, certainly not in this context, but it is important. We have many obligations. This is a big ask. It is a big shift that the Minister is proposing but we need to be satisfied that he can do it in a timely manner. There is not the same pressure, as Senator McDowell talked about earlier on, to deliver this. There are options - opt-out sections to all of this - and that is important.

There are enough concerns. Advocates for human rights have made great submissions. When we look at the detail, in which members of the Minister's party were involved in the Oireachtas committee and its recommendations, it raises the question about the Government's commitment to this process. I will finish on that point. We are coming here in a spirit of co-operation, but doing what we believe is right - standing on our feet, articulating what we see all around us and for the people who have spoken to us.

The Minister will receive our contributions in a way that is meaningful and respectful too, but I would ask him not to use the power that is in his hands to guillotine very important legislation. We have loads of time. Let us get this right.

I welcome the Upper Leeson Street residents' association. They are guests of Deputy James Geoghegan. I hope they enjoy their visit here to Leinster House today.

I also welcome my constituents to Seanad Éireann.

They both timed it well.

It is good timing by my constituents as well.

This was debated on Second Stage in this House and elsewhere. When whoever comes to write the history of the 21st century, migration and immigration is going to be a huge part of it. We are really just seeing that narrative play out. It is an extremely difficult issue for states to deal with, particularly states such as our own which had no real history of immigration prior to the beginning of the 21st century. Migration in Ireland was always in the context of people leaving Ireland. It cast a terrible shadow over Ireland in the 19th and 20th centuries and it really is a sign of the economic and national success of independence that we now find ourselves in a situation where many people want to come into Ireland to live their lives here. At one level, that is a really positive story about the Irish economy and the welcome of the Irish people.

As Minister for justice and as the Government, when it comes to migration there are a number of different areas that we have to appraise and keep control of. Obviously, people can come into Ireland to work if they are from European Union member states. That is part of the free movement of workers that Irish people enjoy with other EU member states and, indeed, EU member states enjoy it here. Similarly, with the common travel area, UK citizens can come here to work. We all want to ensure that happens as well.

As well as that, each year, my Department gives out tens of thousands of visa permits to permit people from outside the European economic area to come to Ireland to work and we very much welcome them in and we assess it. We take into account whether it is for the benefit of the Irish economy, taking into account the fact that obviously they are going to take up accommodation spaces. These are all measured factors that have to be taken into account.

A smaller part of migration into Ireland comes in the realm of international protection, which is also known as asylum. Prior to Covid, the numbers coming into Ireland were pretty low, although at the time that Senator McDowell was Minister for justice they did go up. The truth of the matter is that there is a correlation between the number of asylum applications and the economic success of the country. We saw it at the time of the Celtic tiger - asylum numbers went up. When there was the crash, they went down considerably. What is clearly the case, and we have to be sympathetic but honest about this, is that very many people want to come to Ireland to claim asylum because of the strength of the Irish economy.

Senator Keogan read out numbers in terms of the applications that are waiting to be processed.

As I said, before Covid an average of around 3,000 to 4,000 people claimed asylum in Ireland each year. In 2022 it went up to 13,500, in 2023 it was 13,500, and in 2024 it went up to 18,500. That is when we saw people in tents and a real crisis for the country in trying to respond to that.

Last year, asylum figures went down by 30% to 13,000 and that drop was higher than the EU average. In the UK, with which we are inextricably linked, there was a drop of just 4%. I am very conscious that behind every percentage and every figure there is a human being. We have to recognise that when it comes to asylum, my job as Minister for justice and that of the Government is to balance the rights of the asylum applicant with the rights of the State and the public interest. There is clearly a division between politicians, all coming from a perfectly legitimate background. Many politicians will want to emphasise more the rights of the asylum applicant, while others will want to emphasise more the right of the State to protect its resources and be able to manage asylum. It is my job to try to get the balance right, and that is the purpose of this legislation. We are trying to expedite the process.

As I have said before, I cannot ignore the fact that the significant majority of people who claim asylum in Ireland are not granted asylum. That creates considerable difficulties because there are people who have come in, have been here for many years, have set down roots and have children in school. If it takes three to four years for asylum to be processed, and if at the end of that period they are told they are not entitled to be here, that creates considerable difficulties. It creates difficulties for them, as they have spent four years or so here, and it creates difficulties for the State. The benefit of this significant reform of the asylum laws is that it will expedite the process. That is the primary objective of the legislation I am introducing. It will put in place a statutory requirement that many of the applications will have to be dealt with at first instance and appeal within a period of six months, broadly. That will have a benefit for people who are thinking of coming to Ireland. They will know that if they come here and they are not entitled to asylum, their application will be dealt with very quickly and they will be required to leave. The benefit in having a clear rules-based system that operates expeditiously and gets decisions promptly is that people can get on with their lives. People will know that if they come to Ireland and are entitled to claim asylum, they will get their claim and will be welcome, but if they are not, they will be rejected and will have to leave.

Senator Boyhan, to whom I always listen very carefully, spoke about family reunification. I listened to what was said in the Dáil and I reduced the time period to two years. One of the factors I have to take into account is what is happening in the UK. We are enormously affected by what is happening with its asylum process. When the numbers in the UK go up, they generally go up in Ireland as well because we have an open border with the UK. I get a considered assessment in this House, but many people ask me what I intend to do to stop people coming in from Northern Ireland and claiming asylum. We can put up checkpoints if we want, but we do not want to do that. We have decided not to do that. There are operations in place by An Garda Síochána under Operation Sonnet. I keep emphasising that people who are entitled to benefit from the common travel area are citizens of Ireland and the UK. If you are a citizen from another country, you are not entitled to travel from Northern Ireland down to the Republic. People may find that harsh, but they are the rules and we need to emphasise them.

Family reunification was suspended in the UK. I have to be conscious of what is happening there. If asylum applicants believe the entitlements or the process are more favourable in Ireland than in the UK, the consequence will be that many applicants from the UK will come to Ireland. I have to be careful about that. There is a touch of forum shopping going on, with people who have claimed asylum in the UK then coming to Ireland to claim asylum here too. I want to reduce the extent to which that is happening. That is part of the reason the family reunification laws are being changed. We are perfectly entitled to do that, by the way, because we did not sign up to the family reunification directive.

I think it is fair that if somebody comes to Ireland, they have to wait for a period of time before they bring their family in with them. By the way, children are treated differently. If you are under 18 years of age and are granted asylum in Ireland, the rules in respect of the two-year wait do not apply. This is only in respect of adults. If you come to Ireland and are granted family reunification, it is only fair that you have to wait for a period of two years until such time as you can establish you have the financial wherewithal to look after the people you are bringing into the country, or members of your family. Otherwise, the State will have to look after them and pay for them. That is where the balance between the asylum applicant's rights and the State comes into play.

I note also the High Court decision referenced by Senator Boyhan. It is a complicated issue. In terms of the reception directive, which is a European law, Ireland is required to provide accommodation, as is every European Union country by the way, including Denmark. We are required to provide accommodation to people who come into Ireland claiming asylum.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, 8 and 382 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 16, after line 33, to insert the following:

“Sovereignty of 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.”.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together. Amendment No. 3 addresses the issue of sovereignty in relation to the immigration and international protection policy. Ireland did have the option, under Protocol No. 21, to opt out of elements of the EU migration and asylum pact. That safeguard exists specifically to ensure that Ireland can retain control over policy decisions in the areas of freedom, security and justice where necessary. Despite this safeguard, the Government chose to opt in to the pact entirely.

Sinn Féin opposed these decisions because we believe Ireland must retain the ability to shape migration policy in a way that reflects our own circumstances and legal framework. Ireland is not in the same position as any other EU member states. We are an island nation. We share the common travel area with Britain and our migration system operates within a unique legal and geographical context. The amendment does not attempt to reverse the Government's decision to opt in to the pact. What it does is reaffirm a basic democratic pipeline that the authority to determine immigration and international protection policy rests within the Irish State and is exercised through the Oireachtas. It ensures that nothing in this legislation can be interpreted as delegating that authority to any external institution unless the Oireachtas explicitly approves such a decision through primary legislation. In other words, this amendment protects democratic oversight.

Amendment No. 4 builds on the previous amendment by introducing a mechanism for transparency and parliamentary oversight. Like I said, the Government chose to opt in to the EU migration and asylum pact, a framework that will shape the operation of our international protection system for years to come. However, what has been lacking from the Government's approach is transparency in how these obligations may evolve over time or how they may affect Ireland's legislative autonomy. This amendment will require the Minister to lay an annual report before the Oireachtas outlining three key issues: first, the extent to which Ireland's international protection system remains under domestic control; second, the obligation that arises from the EU or international agreements during the preceding year; and third, the steps taken by the Government to ensure what Irish sovereignty and democratic oversight are maintained. Such reporting mechanisms are not unusual. In many policy areas where the State operates within the international framework, regular reporting ensures the Oireachtas remains informed and able to exercise oversight. Given the scale of the changes introduced through the EU migration pact, such transparency is even more important than ever. This amendment would allow committees to examine the implications of these obligations and then ensure the Oireachtas remains actively engaged in oversight of how the system operates.

Amendment No. 5 deals with what we believe is one of the most striking omissions in this legislation, namely, the absence of any comprehensive analysis of how the new asylum framework will interact with the common travel area. The common travel area is a long-standing agreement that allows for free movement between two jurisdictions. It is a central element of Ireland's immigration system, yet the Government has opted in to the EU migration pact without conducting a detailed assessment of how the new procedures and obligations will interact with that agreement. Ministers themselves have repeatedly stated that a significant proportion of international protection applicants arrive in Ireland through Britain. If that is the case, then the relationship between the EU migration framework and the common travel area becomes critically important.

This amendment requires the Government to prepare and publish an assessment of the potential and actual impacts of this Act on the common travel area. That assessment would include analysis of the movement of persons between Ireland and Britain, consideration of the effect of international protection procedures on co-operation within the common travel area, and the evaluation of potential displacement effects within the system. It would also require consultation with relevant Departments and agencies responsible for immigration control and border management. Given the importance of the common travel area to Ireland's migration framework, this type of analysis should have been undertaken before the Government even decided to opt into the pact. This amendment simply seeks to ensure that is carried out.

I welcome guests of the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, to the Gallery. I hope they are enjoying their visit.

I want to put on the record of this House, lest anybody misinterpret anything I say in the course of the debate on this Bill, that I do not morally condemn young men, in particular, from disadvantaged parts of the world who see in Europe the opportunity of a better life from an economic and social point of view. I make no moral condemnation of them, no more than we collectively made moral condemnations of our own nationals who, at times in the past, went to the United States, outstayed their welcome and became illegal there. It is perfectly understandable that these young men, in general terms, from west Africa, the Maghreb, east Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Vietnam, who live in those countries see an opportunity to come to Europe and to participate in the advanced economy of the European Union and to avail of the fact that the state in the European Union will look after them to some extent in a way which other states would not. I want to put on the record that moral condemnation of migrants, a term which I use advisedly, is not part of my thought process or my approach.

The European Union and its member states have put together an elaborate legal construct based on what is in Article 18 of Charter of Fundamental Rights, namely the right to asylum. The European Union has, and I use this word with a degree of cynicism, decided that it has competence in this area when it has proven generally that it has absolutely no competence in the sense that the ordinary person would give to that phrase. Where the European Union has created a legal construct which allows people to travel to Europe by one means or another, and then to claim asylum, it is almost inevitable that anybody who sees an opportunity, even if the odds are against them in the sense that the Minister says that the majority of applicants are now refused in Ireland, to get to Europe and be one of the 1 million people who Senator Keogan mentioned are seeking asylum status in Europe, it is perfectly understandable that they will do it. Why not? It is a good toss of the coin. They are more likely than not in some circumstances to succeed. I do not morally condemn people who see that opportunity.

If the Americans had a system whereby the Irish undocumented were effectively given a legal channel to stay within the United States permanently, the flow of Irish people to America in those years would have been huge. However, they did not. The Americans are more stern than we have ever been in relation to undocumented people and now things have got to a really appalling situation with ICE and the Trump Administration.

Those people who travel from Vietnam, west Africa, the Maghreb and east Africa are part, generally speaking, of a major international racket. They are asked for what for them are huge sums of money, thousands of euro, to begin their journey to Ireland or to Europe. They are ripped off systematically by gangsters the whole way whenever that possibility exists. In some cases, they are put to terrible risks like travelling in a container in which some of them are liable to be suffocated, or crossing the Mediterranean or crossing the English Channel in circumstances where their lives are massively at risk, all on the basis that they are paying to participate in this process. That whole illegal migration into Europe is a massive international racket. It is criminal and it is wrong. It is not to be condoned for one minute. The expectations, hopes and aspirations of those people who avail of it is one set of things but the terrible abuses of the people who are trapped in this process is another.

In the entire duration of this debate in this House, I hear the conflation of migration, the rights of migrants in international law and the fact that there are international commissions on migration on the one hand, and the people who are trafficked by criminals internationally. The conflation of those two sets of people is very easily done especially by those who wish to blur the distinction. That is a point that we find all the time in public discourse on this issue. On the one hand people, including me, would point to the positive aspects of migration, economic migration, providing it is lawful and to the role of the Minister's Department and other Departments in securing migration where it is needed for our social and economic benefit and on the other hand, to the whole process of asylum seeking.

The Minister has talked about the figures that went up and down over the years. I do not want to be unfair to the former Minister, Roderic O'Gorman, who is a Member of the Dáil. He told us at one stage about three years ago that we would have to get used to an asylum-seeking migration volume of applications of between 25,000 and 30,000 people per annum. That is what he said. The fact that it is down to 13,000 now is good because the great majority of it, as the Minister has said, is not justified. Let us be clear about it: the great majority of applicants who stay to have their applications dealt with are found not to be entitled to asylum status in Ireland.

My next point is we have a very sophisticated apparatus in this country compared with what I found when I was made Minister for justice in succession to the Minister, John O'Donoghue, in 2002. At that time, the State was utterly unprepared for the influx of applicants who sought asylum in Ireland. We were unprepared for it and were defenceless in many respects. We had not put in place procedures or agencies or the like to deal adequately with the fact that people were claiming asylum. In the meantime, let us also remember, we have spent billions of euro on the accommodation of asylum seekers, the majority of whom are not entitled to asylum. The public rightly asks what the procedures are whereby some people can become multimillionaires providing the State with this accommodation in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. However, let us be honest: the High Court, under the very estimable, respectable and highly gifted judge Mr. Justice Cian Ferriter, has recently had to award compensation, effectively damages, to asylum seekers who came here at a time when there was no accommodation available to them. They had to sleep homeless. We all saw what happened during that critical period.

The average citizen here wonders how it can possibly be that somebody who opts to come to Ireland when there is no accommodation gets compensated for the choice they make. How does that make sense? It does not make sense. It does make sense in one area, however, and that is legally. Mr. Justice Ferriter in a very considered judgment examined all the case law of – guess what? – the Court of Justice of the European Union and found himself driven to the point that in those circumstances the State, which had already said it was in breach of an obligation to provide accommodation but did not have that accommodation, must compensate people. It should be remembered that in that particular case the State conceded it was in breach of its obligations. The real issue was whether the non-availability of accommodation could give rise to a claim of compensation by people who were denied it.

I do not know, and I shudder to think, how many other people reading that fine judgment are consulting solicitors around this city at the moment wondering what they are entitled to for the fact that they spent weeks on the Grand Canal in tents and the like. I do not know what the result will be. The crucial thing is, and this is the point about the Sinn Féin amendment which intrigues me and I sympathise with it, that here we are being told that Ireland is a sovereign State and we are also, of course, members of the European Union but we have opted in to something that very severely compromises our sovereignty. The migration pact is a package that further cements the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg as the final arbiter of what the member states’ obligations to applicants for asylum actually are and what they are entitled to.

It imposes its own legal framework on member states when administering the law relating to asylum seekers. That is the point about the Sinn Féin amendment.

The reality is that Denmark was sensible enough to opt out of a considerable amount of the area of freedom and justice that came in in the context of the Lisbon treaty. Nobody has ever explained to me why it was that when the Lisbon treaty had brought into effect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it was considered that the right to asylum was something the Union could uphold. Why could the Union uphold this? It was a Union of member states. Nobody ever applied to the Union for asylum. They were applying to individual member states. I remember the Lisbon treaty debates and there were all sorts of discussions on everything from abortion to defence to neutrality. Everything was discussed at the time but nobody asked, "Hold it, what is the European Union doing writing into its fundamental law obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention?" Nobody ever at the time said, "This is a disaster in the making". I have to say, I did not say it and I supported the Lisbon treaty. I never looked around the particular corner of that right to asylum because we were told at the time that this charter only applied where member states were applying European Union law. This is an important point. That sounded very attractive as a proposition, whereby if they were applying European Union law, well, all right, maybe there should be some charter of fundamental rights and freedoms.

In fact, that situation has dramatically changed. This is where the Sinn Féin amendment is of interest. We now find ourselves in circumstances where our sovereignty, to which its amendment refers, has been handcuffed by European treaties to this proposition that the European Union in a flourish of generosity said, "The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty [establishing the European community]". The simple fact is that the European Union treaties are supposed to determine how the member states operate among themselves. The European Union is not a sovereign body. It is by no means entitled to advance the proposition that all member states must apply the conventions at all times in their dealings with outsiders. The Minister here said that he has the difficult role, and I accept it completely, of striking a balance between the rights of would-be asylum seekers, on the one hand, and the rights of member states, on the other hand, to look after different considerations. I accept that he feels this and I accept that he feels he is striking a balance. Senator Boyhan mentioned the instance of whether we allow family reunification at three years or two years and whether that is consistent or inconsistent with European law. I take the Minister's point that he is advised the change he is making is consistent with our rights under European Union law.

Apart from things like that, the reality is the migration pact is a further step towards the dilution of Irish sovereignty and the transfer of that sovereignty to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the final arbiters, the judges in Luxembourg who are accountable to nobody in the end. When you ask why somebody who chooses to come to Ireland to seek asylum, when there is no accommodation for them, becomes entitled to compensation from the Irish people, the answer is it is a matter of European law by which an Irish judge is bound.

The European Union should not have been given this competence. It should be a matter for each member state to work out where it stands on this issue. It was a mistake to give this competence to the European Union. I ask the Minister to forget about Iveagh House. When I was Minister for Justice, I was president for six months of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union. I found our diplomats kept on saying to me, "If you take that stance, Minister, you'll be isolated." When I went to the meetings, I then found that the other Ministers for justice and home affairs were with me 100% and there was no question of me being isolated.

I believe it is time the Ministers for justice and home affairs across the European Union got together and said to the rest of the European Council and its President that this system of asylum-seeking is not working out well and is not going to work out well. The migration pact will not stop what is happening in the Mediterranean or what is happening in the English Channel, and, therefore, across the border into Ireland. The time has come for the European Union to reconsider whether member states' sovereign rights should be restored to them so the Danes can do what they want and the Poles can do what they want.

The figures mentioned by Senator Keogan were interesting. Looking at the figures for applicants per head of population, we are not doing all that well. We are a destination of choice. It should go back to the individual member states to determine how they strike the balance. When a State like ours is in the middle of a housing crisis, to say an applicant for asylum is entitled to be compensated because he has voluntarily come to this country and found no accommodation available to him offends common sense. He did not have to come to Ireland. No matter what view you take of asylum seeking, nobody is forced to come to Ireland because it is difficult to get here except through the United Kingdom, and it is difficult to get there except through France and the rest of it.

It is about time the Government looked at Article 18 of this charter of fundamental rights and freedoms and spoke to the governments in Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - I am not talking about Hungary but I will include it - and Austria, Slovenia, Italy, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Finland, by the way, has 2,000 people seeking asylum and it has the same population we have. There is a lesson there.

It is about time that the governments of the European Union said that the so-called competence, which has been conferred on the Union, is not working out and that they want a radical rethink on this issue. I am not parroting Trump-like views on immigration. I am quite happy with immigration providing it is lawful. I am very happy with it. I believe there is a danger that hard-right racist thinkers equally like to conflate migration. There are two groups of people who like to conflate migration with asylum seeking - the hard right and the hard left. Truthfully, down the middle, we have to draw that distinction. I am just saying that it is about time that the governments of the European Union got together and said to the institutions of the European Union, particularly to the Parliament, for which nothing is good enough but to get more power, that the member states would make a better fist of asylum seeking, in particular, if their sovereignty was, as suggested in the Sinn Féin motion, restored substantially and if the European Union admitted that it cannot maintain the cohesion of the Union and, at the same time, make such a bags of controlling the abuse of asylum seeking, which is an economic and criminal racket operated at great cost to the people who are stripped of their money by traffickers. It is about time that we honestly said that migration is good, bogus asylum seeking is bad and we will not allow the abuse of asylum seeking to put member states in the position that we in this country have been put in. If we put it over ten years, how much have we spent on asylum accommodation? Is it €1.3 billion or €1.2 billion per year? That is €12 billion. We could build a lot of things with €12 billion and do a lot of things with that money, but we have put it into the hands of landlords, hoteliers and others around the country to no avail and to achieve practically nothing.

Finally, there is no justice in putting people into substandard accommodation. There is no justice in that, especially when there are children involved. What else can this country do when it is pumping resources into the hands of persons who are exploiting the shortage of housing by offering the State emergency housing at unconscionable rents?

There are a number of things I could comment on but I am keen, as I am sure others are, to move to the many amendments we have to cover. There is one thing that needs to be said. It has been stated as if it is a fact multiple times that economics is the driver of asylum seeking. Even the Minister suggested that when we look at the figures, it is when our economy is good that asylum seekers come in. We need for context to look at what is actually driving asylum seeking internationally. The fact is that the figures from 2014 show that there were 59 million people displaced by conflict worldwide. In 2024,120 million people were displaced by conflict. In that year when there was a slight increase, again, very small numbers overall, which went down again last year, 2024 smashed records for the number of people who had been displaced through the horrors of war and conflict. It was described by the UN in 2024 as smashing records for human tragedy on a massive scale, with millions violently uprooted and struggling for survival as refugees and displaced people. The UN also noted that it was a failure and "a terrible indictment on the state of the world". In 2024, when there was that very small increase in the number of asylum seekers in Ireland, I do not think they were looking at the GDP figure and saying the economy is great and that they would all shop around. The fact is that millions of people right across the world were being driven into movement by escalations in conflict that we see every night on our televisions. We should remember, when we are disparaging the 1951 legislation and all of that, where that came from. It actually came from a point when humanity remembered, because they had seen it in the Second World War, what war is and what conflict is and what hideous things drive people into desperate situations. There is a suggestion that while there are some genuine cases, we are going to keep implying we know that most are economic cases and that the attraction is really our economic figures. Let us actually work with the reality that we have a world on fire and we are doing a tiny modicum of what we should be doing, and we should be doing it in a way that is decent. I am not going to get to the many other points I would like to because I would like to focus on our amendments. Those facts on displacement internationally need to be put on the record, however.

I welcome the Fianna Fáil youth group to the Chamber. They are guests of the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and Deputy Cathal Crowe. They are very welcome.

I call Senator McCormack.

I welcome the Minister. I will be brief as well because I want us to get through as many amendments as we can. I am going to talk about amendments Nos. 3 and 5. Senator McDowell has outlined so much of what is important with amendment No. 3 and I commend him on that. It is about our sovereignty. I would really like to hear the Minister speak about this to this Chamber and tell us his rationale because I am really concerned. This amendment is just about one simple thing, namely, protecting our sovereignty. The principle here is that decisions on migration must remain in Ireland and we must not hand them over to the EU. This is not unique to Ireland. Other countries have a problem with this as well. We are very lucky to debate this in our Houses, although this has been a very short debate and there should have been much longer discussions through the committees. We are a very unique country and we should not hand over so much of this to the EU.

That leads me on to amendment No. 5. I heard the Minister a couple of weeks ago on RTÉ news. He might correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said 90% of immigration by international protection applicants came from the UK. If we talk about this as being the biggest problem at the minute, and I have heard the Minister say that in his speeches as well, what are we doing about that? Signing up to this EU pact is not going to do anything about that. If we know where our biggest problem is, should we not be trying to build relationships towards uniting our island or building relationships with the UK to see what we can do? I do not see any assessment anywhere in this new Bill about what analysis is being done or what risks this is going to have for the Border or what co-operation is going to take place. I am very worried that this has been rushed through so fast. The Minister is talking about how great this is going to be for our country by making everything faster and everything like that, yet 90% is coming from the north of our island and the Bill is going to do sweet FA for us. I feel we really need to address that problem. I would love to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.

I want to thank in the first instance Senator Ryan for amendment No. 3. I propose to respond to amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, 8 and 382 together as they relate to matters regarding Ireland's sovereignty and the common travel area. I will start by looking at amendment No. 3 itself, which states, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the sovereign authority of the State ... to determine policy in respect of immigration ... " We need to recognise that what we are doing here today is Irish sovereignty in practice. We are debating legislation that was passed by the Lower House and has come here to decide what policy Ireland wants as its asylum law for this time onwards in the 21st century.

It is our policy. It is our sovereignty. Our Constitution says we are a sovereign, independent, democratic State. We made a decision back in the early 1970s to join what was then the European Economic Community. That was a sovereign exercise by the Irish people. We decided to join it and subsequently we made a decision about the Lisbon treaty. The Irish people decided to sign up to it. They were all exercises of Irish sovereignty. Sovereignty also means we can make a decision to share our sovereignty with others in areas where we think it is appropriate and beneficial to us to do so. On the decisions made on the Lisbon treaty, one of the things we opted out of was the area of justice and home affairs, but we said we could opt into it under Protocol No. 21. Again, that is an example of Ireland making a decision based on our sovereign choice. In the previous Dáil and Seanad, a decision was made to opt in to the regulations and directives that make up the migration pact. That was Irish sovereignty in practice and if people want to opt out of the pact, although I do not know how that can be done, the vote would not be in favour of those who say we should never have opted in to the regulations and directives. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 3 or 4 in respect of sovereignty because this is Ireland exercising its sovereignty.

One of the issues raised by Sinn Féin in the Lower House was that we should not have opted in to the migration pact, that we made a terrible mistake. There are people outside Sinn Féin who say that as well. I ask, only partly rhetorically, what they would do to change Ireland's asylum laws? Even if we were not in the migration pact - if we had decided to do what Denmark did - we would still find ourselves in the situation where people will come to Ireland to claim asylum. We will still find ourselves attached to a part of the United Kingdom, with people coming down to Ireland because it is an attractive location and English speaking. Therefore, we need to have a more advanced view of the consequences of not signing up to the migration pact. People's view is that we would be in a much better position and that we would be like Denmark and people would not come in. That is not an accurate counterfactual. We would still find ourselves attached to part of the United Kingdom and large numbers of people wanting to come here.

Amendment No. 5 is about the common travel area. It is a real challenge for me as Minister and for legislators to determine what we can do in respect of the common travel area. I have emphasised previously that the common travel area is there for the benefit of citizens of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I would like Senators and political parties to emphasise that more. People are not permitted to travel from Northern Ireland into the Republic if they are not citizens of Ireland, the UK or the Channel Islands, which are also in it. That can be emphasised.

On Senator McCormack's question about what we are doing, I said earlier, if we want to ensure people do not come from Northern Ireland into the Republic unless they are citizens of the Irish jurisdictions, we put up a hard Border. The Senator does not want a hard Border, just as much as I do not. I also asked Deputy Carthy this. What is Sinn Féin's proposal to stop people who are not entitled to use the common travel area travelling from Northern Ireland to the Republic? I appreciate it is a complex issue. What I have done, however, is to have meetings as recently as last week with the British Government in Cork where we discussed abuse of the common travel area. We need to call it abuse of the common travel area because that is what it is. One of the things I will seek to agree with the British Government is an increase in data sharing. Data is important in this and the more data we have about people who have applied in the UK and then apply here or vice versa, the better. We will also agree to have greater operational measures to ensure the common travel area is not abused.

At present, the UK is designated under Irish law as a safe third country because it is a safe third country. In practice, we are not sending people back to the UK because they have come from there or have already applied there. Similarly, the UK is not sending back to Ireland people who applied in Ireland and then went to the UK. We just talked about people coming from Scotland to Northern Ireland down to the South. Similarly, the British Government talked to me about people coming into Dublin Airport, going to Belfast and travelling across, getting into the UK that way.

Therefore, in terms of operationalising it with returns from one jurisdiction to the other and the same numbers going across each time, the reality of what the British Government is doing at the moment has to be appreciated. It entered an agreement with France that there would be one in and one out and we can see what its view of that is. I will continue to engage with my colleagues in the UK. There is good co-operation between the Home Office and the Department of justice and improvements are deriving from it. However, short of putting up a hard Border, it is extremely difficult to stop people coming in. We need to ensure and emphasise that if people have applied for asylum in the UK, they cannot apply in Ireland and vice versa and these factors will be taken into account in the asylum pact. That was in respect of amendment No. 5.

I cannot accept amendment No. 8 either or the final amendment, which I said I was considering, amendment No. 382.

I will deal briefly with some of the comments made by Senator McDowell. I know we want to get on to amendments, but it is sometimes worth having a broader debate, although there was a Second Stage debate. I cannot change the Lisbon treaty that was signed in 2004. A provision was included in Article 18 of the charter that the right to asylum shall be respected in the European Union. EU countries - and this is apparent to me from meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council - recognise that there is a limit to the number of people who can be accommodated by the European Union. That is the current view of the European Union. Senator Higgins referred to the disruption and chaos in the world. That is of course correct, but it does not mean that a small section of the world is responsible for accepting a significant number of asylum applicants. The world has to bear the responsibility equally for asylum applicants. However, it is unquestionably the case, looking at the statistics for Ireland, that the majority of people who apply for asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution and war do not get it because the finding is that they are not. I have to be able to say that and we have to have an open and frank discussion about it.

I agree with Senator McDowell. I do not morally condemn anyone who wants to come to Ireland or the European Union to try to make a better life. I slightly disagree with the comparison with what happened in the 19th century or 20th century in Ireland. Asylum now puts significant obligations on states that were not there before, including providing accommodation and processing applications. That did not happen when people went to America in the past. I do not morally condemn anyone seeking to move to improve their lives. However, it is the case that we have to try to have a balance between the rights we protect and the State we seek to protect. I ask the Senator to consider it.

Sometimes a simplistic analysis is put forward that if we had not gone into the pact we would not have this trouble. I believe, if we had stayed out of the pact and gone on our own, we would be in a worse condition. I gave the statistics for last year with the reduction in asylum numbers throughout the European Union. They are approximately 20% down. In Ireland, they are 30% down. In the UK, which decided to go it alone, they are 4% down. Going it alone, doing our own thing, is not necessarily a recipe for success in trying to get greater control of the asylum system.

At the same time, we need to be able to have an honest discussion about immigration. Sometimes, and understandably so, people shy away from talking about it because it is manipulated and weaponised by people who are on the extremes. For a centre-ground political system such as Ireland's and as represented in this House, we have to be able to discuss it because if we do not discuss it and set forward what our honest views are in respect of it, then it will be weaponised by the extremes.

I did indicate to come in earlier on my amendment No. 382. While it is technically my last amendment, it is certainly not the least. This amendment, and those proposed by the Senators in the same grouping as me, all confront a truth that has been brushed aside for too long, namely, the erosion of Ireland's sovereign control over its own migration, border and international protection policies. That brings directly to amendment No. 382, which I have tabled and which states plainly and unapologetically:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as diminishing the sovereign right of the State to determine and regulate its own immigration, border and international protection policies, save only to the extent necessary to give effect to obligations arising under directly applicable European Union law.

It is a simple amendment but it cuts right to the heart of the matter. If this Bill truly respected Ireland's sovereignty and truly preserved the freedom of the Irish people to determine their own migration laws, then such an amendment would not even be necessary, but it is necessary. Let me explain why.

This Bill accelerates the transfer of Irish migration control to the EU and amendment No. 382 is a line that must be drawn. This Bill embeds EU migration policy into Irish law so deeply and constructurally that our own domestic preferences become secondary. We are binding ourselves into an EU migration framework designed for the needs of much larger states. It is essentially a bargain between wealthier northern EU nations to support the Mediterranean states on the front line of the migration crisis. It is not a bargain that takes us and our particular circumstances into account. It is a pact that is not made for a small nation with limited capacity, a unique common travel area and resources, in particular its housing system, that are already stretched to breaking point.

Amendment No. 382 reminds us, the courts, the Government and future Governments that Irish sovereignty does not trickle down from Brussels. It flows from this Chamber, from the Constitution and from the Irish people, and let us make no apology for saying that. If we do not assert sovereignty clearly in primary legislation, then over time, through interpretation, practice and custom, we will find it has slipped away and by the time we notice, it will be too late to pull it back.

Sovereignty must be stated explicitly because the Bill places Ireland into an inflexible, majority-driven EU migration system. The Government and Brussels may insist that nothing is being forced on Ireland, but let us look at the reality. By opting in to the migration pact and now legislating to implement it in full, we are creating a situation in which EU regulations take precedence over Irish statute, EU timeframes override Irish administrative capacity, EU relocation mechanisms override our national discretion and EU definitions, procedure and priorities replace our own. This is not abstract; it is happening right now. That is why amendment No. 382 matters, because it anchors a principle that is otherwise absent, that Ireland retains inherent sovereign competence even while co-operating internationally. Without that anchor, this Bill becomes the gateway to a future where Ireland is permanently downstream of EU majority decisions that may have nothing to do with our interests.

We cannot pretend Ireland has the capacity to surrender national control and simply keep up. Let me be blunt. We do not have the housing capacity. We do not have the processing capacity. We do not have the return capacity. We do not have the infrastructure. We do not even have a border control on our own land border. Yet this Bill locks us into mandatory, time-bound obligations designed for countries with entirely different capabilities. It will ultimately result in leaving all voters, administrators and leaders wondering why our asylum system is overwhelmed while communities are frustrated and services are collapsing under the weight of decisions made elsewhere.

Let us look at the migration pact. Under it, there will be a relocation mechanism. That mechanism will take the overflow of migrants hitting Spain, Italy, Greece and so on and will relocate them based on population and GDP. Let me emphasise the last point, GDP. Here is another example of why our sovereignty is necessary. Unlike that of other bigger EU nations, our GDP is not an accurate reflection of our economic capabilities due to our specific tax laws and the financial instruments in our markets that allow huge sums of money to flow through our country but not rest here. In fact, our own Government argues against Brussels' use of GDP when making policy regarding our country, yet here, on the question of the relocation of IP applicants, we have been straightjacketed into a one-size-fits-all approach that works for bigger, more industrialised nations. It is a perfect example of sovereignty necessity.

Furthermore, while we are on the opt-in to this pact, there is yet another reason we must assert our sovereignty wherever and however possible. We have no idea how many relocations we are to receive. The pact sets a minimum of 30,000 relocations across the Continent per year, which would give us, under the current formula, about 1,000 relocations. Let me return to that word, "minimum". In short, that is the floor we are to expect and given the sheer scale of arrivals over the past several years, the amount of economic pressure other EU states are under, the amount of political pressure they are under to apply for their own derogations and the sheer scale of geopolitical instability we are facing, there is no guessing what numbers we could be told by the Commission next year or the year after. I gave those figures earlier, where countries now have a backlog in their systems of 1.3 million.

Immigration numbers will continue to rise due to war and chaos throughout this world, as they have done over the past number of years. Then so too will the Commission's annual relocation demand. That is an unavoidable arithmetic of the pact. In this situation of enormous instability, the most solid guarantee is our ability to control our own response. To this end, amendment No. 382 is not symbolic. It is practical. It creates a legal basis and a safety valve for Ireland to assert that national limits matter and that the State cannot be compelled to do what it physically cannot do. Sovereignty is not a luxury; it is essential when capacity is finite.

This amendment ensures the Irish courts would interpret the Act through an Irish lens, not an EU-first lens. Let us think forward. What happens when a dispute arises as to whether Ireland must implement a certain EU-derived procedure in full, even if doing so would overwhelm our system? Without amendment No. 382, courts will default to expansive interpretations of EU obligations, national discretion will be minimised and the benefit of the doubt will lie with the EU institutions, not with Ireland. With amendment No. 382, the courts will be guided to interpret grey areas in favour of Irish sovereign authority, not in favour of the constant expansion of EU competence. It is a guardrail, a reminder of the constitutional principle written into statute. If we do not write it in ourselves, nobody else will write it in for us. Ireland should co-operate with Europe but co-operation is not subordination.

I want to say this very clearly. I am not against co-operation. I am not against partnership. I am not against supporting other member states or working together on shared challenges. However, co-operation must be voluntary, it must be flexible, it must respect national differences and it must never be confused with surrendering national control. Amendment No. 382 ensures co-operation remains co-operation, not absorption. It affirms that Ireland decides, Ireland governs and Ireland sets policy, except to the minimum extent required by directly applicable EU law. That is not radical. It is not extreme. It is basic sovereignty. If the Government truly believes sovereignty matters, there should be no difficulty in accepting this amendment.

Amendment No. 382 strengthens the Bill. It does not weaken compliance or undermine obligations. It simply states openly and honestly that Ireland's sovereignty remains intact. If the Government rejects it, it is admitting that sovereignty is being diminished, that national discretion is being constrained and that the EU's role will supersede Ireland's.

That is the truth that they do not want to say out loud but the Irish people already know it and expect someone in this Chamber to call it what it is.

Amendment No. 382 is not about slogans, theatrics or making a point; it is about ensuring that, as we legislate under immense EU pressure, we do not lose sight of who we are legislating for. Ireland is a sovereign nation and sovereignty is the foundation of democracy. Democracy demands that the Irish people - not EU majorities, foreign governments or supranational institutions - retain the final say over who may enter and remain in this State.

This Bill may move us toward a centralised EU migration model but amendment No. 382 ensures that, whatever path we choose, we do not forget the fundamental principle that must guide it. Ireland is sovereign and sovereignty must never be presumed; it must be stated, asserted and defended.

Will the Minister provide an update on Border control operations? We had a system there with the PSNI and Garda working together. Have there been any apprehensions on the Border?

On the solidarity mechanism Senator Keogan referred to, we are not opting in to accepting individuals; we are making a financial contribution in the region of €9 million. A member state can choose to go down the route of accepting applicants or making a financial contribution and we are doing the latter.

On Operation Sonnet, I am pleased with the Garda national immigration bureau. There is strong co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda. As Senator McDowell mentioned, a large part of this involves the trafficking of individuals, unfortunately. That is a serious offence that needs to be policed, and is being policed, irrespective of the policing of the common travel area. It involves significant co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI.

A point that has to be made for honesty's sake in this debate is that we are sovereign in relation to economic migration, with the sole exception of the right of EU nationals to locate here under EU law, which none of us is challenging or saying is wrong. The Minister and his colleagues determine whether we need more Third World people to come to Ireland to do the valuable work many of them do in our social services and the like. We will probably have to make decisions about construction workers in the fullness of time. We are entirely sovereign in that area. The point that has to be rammed home is that the EU has no capacity to say to us, "You must allow people in to be electricians, this, that or the other", or, "You must increase your workforce", or whatever. Nobody in the EU institutions or the European Court of Justice has the right to tell us what to do in relation to that. The Government decides that through departmental decisions. We are sovereign in that area.

The place where we are not sovereign is with regard to asylum seeking. We talk about the very carefully described migration pact. In relation to economic migration we are sovereign; we decide who gets into Ireland, how many people we need and how many people are welcome here. It has nothing to do with migration; this pact has everything to do with asylum seeking and international protection. That is what it is about. It has been described as a migration pact when, in fact, it is an asylum and international protection pact. Hungary, France and everybody in the European Union is entitled to say they need, because of demographics, X thousand people to come and work in their country. The German Chancellor once welcomed a million Syrians because she said they needed them. Whether she was right or wrong about that, she did it. We say this is a migration pact and a migration issue but it really is not a migration issue. It is about whether Ireland has control over the one area this all applies to, which is international protection - not economic migration.

The issue of sovereignty in immigration policy should not be seen as an abstract constitutional debate. It is about whether the Irish State retains control over decisions that impact our housing supply, school places and community cohesion. I remain concerned that through the EU migration pact, we have effectively transferred significant elements of decision-making authority to Brussels. While European co-operation has a role to play, the practical effect appears to be that Ireland has reduced autonomy in determining how its immigration system operates. Governments often respond to these concerns by arguing that they received a democratic mandate from the people. However, it is worth asking whether voters were ever explicitly told that immigration policy would increasingly be shaped by EU level mechanisms, rather than domestic decision-making.

If the public is to have confidence in the system, it must be clear who holds authority and where accountability lies. That is why the amendments proposing greater transparency are important. In particular, the proposal for an annual report outlining the extent to which Ireland's international protection system remains under domestic control is a sensible and measured step. Such a report would clarify which aspects of policy are determined by the Irish Government and which arise from EU obligations. When it becomes harder and harder for people to find housing or get their child into a school, I would like it to be clear where the responsibility lies. The Government did not put the adoption of the pact to the people and it has decided that we will allow the EU to make decisions for us. We need to understand the repercussions of the Government's unilateral decision to sign up to the migration pact.

We made a decision in the previous Oireachtas to sign up to this arrangement. We decided to harmonise our asylum laws with other EU countries. That is Irish sovereignty in practice. We agreed to do that. The Houses of the Oireachtas decided to do that on foot of a Government recommendation. We cannot keep saying this is not Irish sovereignty in practice.

Regrettably, the debate here is all about saying we should not have gone into the pact. Can people tell me what measures they want in this legislation that are not there? If people want to say we should not allow asylum, let them stand up and say we should put that in there. Will Senators explain to me what they want to see in this? Rather than saying they would not have gone into the pact, let them think of substantive measures they would like to see here. The measures in this are about processing applications quickly and making decisions promptly; not allowing oral hearings, except in exceptional circumstances, on appeal; and restricting family reunification. Those are all policies that I, as Minister for justice of an independent Ireland, have put forward. I do not say this critically of Senators, but I want to hear what proposals they think should be in it. What substantive ones? I have heard none. I am sorry to sound like a schoolteacher.

We have not got to the amendments with the proposals yet.

I have not heard anyone say they would change asylum law in Ireland by doing X, Y or Z. We are sovereign and can do a huge amount of what we wish to do but I am just hearing in the debate that Senators would not have gone into the pact and feel we have lost control. What control do they want? Spell it out.

Sorry, I probably should not have stood up.

This judgment whereby compensation is paid to people who we did not have accommodation for is forced on us by the European Union. The judgment is clear. It goes through case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It should be an Irish decision whether to compensate people. It should not be forced on us by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Irish High Court judges should not be obliged by European case law to hand out money to people who came to Ireland when there was no accommodation for them and when Irish people, as well as asylum seekers, were in emergency accommodation, including families sharing one hotel room and the like. Regarding people who came here when there was no capacity to house them, we should not be in a position whereby we end up compensating those people and everybody who will follow. The answer to that is that if member states have the right to determine their own laws, regardless of Luxembourg decisions, no compensation would be paid because the Irish people would say that is nonsense and they are not paying people who come here and find they have to stay in a tent because there is no place for them. We are not going to do that in the future.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 16, after line 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;

(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.”.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 16, after line 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 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.”.

Amendments Nos. 6, 11 to 15, inclusive, 58, 60 to 63, inclusive, 65 to 67, inclusive, 203, 220, 224 to 226, inclusive, 228 to 239, inclusive, 242, 243 and 409 are related.

Amendment No. 59 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 58. Amendments Nos. 61 to 63, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 60. Amendments Nos. 6, 11 to 15, inclusive, 58, 60 to 63, inclusive, 65 to 67, inclusive, 203, 220, 224 to 226, inclusive, 228 to 233, inclusive, 242, 243 and 409 may be discussed together by agreement. The amendment proposed to amendment No. 14 is also included in this group. Is that agreed?

Not agreed. I have had no notice of this grouping.

Would Senator McDowell like me to read the list again?

No. I cannot speed read at the rate of the Leas-Chathaoirleach. We will take the Minister's amendment now.

As the Leas-Chathaoirleach has indicated, we are discussing a group of amendments. The vast majority of the amendments in the grouping are mine but some are not, including amendments Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, 60 and 62, and we will deal with them as I go through them.

The amendments I am bringing forward will introduce legal counselling under the Bill. They provide for a definition of legal counselling, setting it distinctly apart from legal advice, legal assistance and legal representation. This is why I will not be accepting amendments Nos. 12 or 13, as they would fully align legal counselling with legal advice, which is not the intention of this service. Legal counselling is a new concept in Irish law and will consist of the provision of general advice and guidance in relation to an application, and not legal advice, assistance or representation, which are clearly set out in Ireland on a statutory basis.

The goal here is to create a new layer of guidance at the very early stage of an international protection application, which will endeavour to ensure that all applicants are aware of what procedures apply to them and what their courses of action can be. I should also say this is not being introduced to replace the existing systems of civil legal advice and legal aid that are already provided. By implementing this new additional service we will not be taking away from but, in fact, bolstering that system, ensuring that applicants have access to vital information pertinent to the application process before they have completed the lodging of their application. Work is ongoing in my Department, in conjunction with officials from the Legal Aid Board to implement fully this service when the pact comes into effect. The delivery will most likely take on a multitude of different forms, including digital, group sessions and one-on-one services, depending on the complexity of the applicants' needs.

Taking account of the above, I do not propose to accept amendment to amendment No. 14. The Department's legal counselling provisions already accommodate the individual needs of applicants with respect to the delivery of legal counselling. I am concerned the amendment to amendment No. 14 would risk bringing the scope of legal counselling too close to that of legal advice, whereby applicants receive individual advice tailored to their personal circumstances.

Amendments Nos. 58, 61 and 63 will ensure that applicants are made aware of their right to legal counselling, their right to consult a legal representative and their right to apply for legal advice and legal aid. As has been stated previously, legal counselling is not a requirement for legal aid or legal representation, and as such it is vital that applicants are made aware of their right to avail of such. For this reason I propose to not accept amendments Nos. 60 and 62 as the other amendments will account for these suggestions.

Amendment No. 66 will introduce a new section setting out where an applicant may request legal counselling. It also sets out that it will be provided in line with the asylum procedures regulation and the asylum migration management regulation. Applicants may be excluded from receiving legal counselling where they are already being assisted by a legal representative. Whether or not applicants are being provided with legal counselling or excluded from such shall be recorded in their files. For this reason I propose to not accept amendment No. 65 as amendment No. 66 will account for this.

Amendment No. 67 will introduce a new section establishing an applicant's right to consult legal representation under the Bill. Applicants may obtain legal advice at any stage during the procedure in respect of their application to determine the member state responsible under the asylum migration management regulation, AMMR, or in respect of an appeal. Legal advice is given the same meaning as it has under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and may be provided by a practising solicitor or barrister.

Amendments Nos. 203, 220, 224 to 226, inclusive, 228 to 233, inclusive, 242 and 243 are technical and drafting amendments that provide clarity and correct errors in the text.

Amendment No. 409 is related to the Long Title of the Bill. Contained in the Title of the Bill is the Bill's purpose, a list of the instruments it seeks to implement into Irish law and a list of the other Acts being amended or repealed by its provisions. Amendments brought forward by my Department at this stage seek to insert provisions related to the delivery of legal counselling into the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995. As such, this amendment is necessary to maintain a full list of Acts being amended by the Bill. Amendment No. 6 seeks to put in a definition of the Act of 1995, being the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995.

I withdraw my objection to the grouping.

With regard to the idea of legal counselling versus legal advice, the Minister says this is a new concept he is bringing onto a statutory footing in Ireland. As my understanding is that advice has to be conducted by a solicitor or barrister, who exactly will carry out this counselling? It is good that some concept of legal counselling has been brought forward and that the Minister has given a definition. It is quite baffling that it has taken so long to get it but nevertheless it is good that it is here. We do have concerns that what the Minister is proposing will fall short of what applicants are currently entitled to.

The reason we tabled our amendments is to ensure legal counselling is individualised. This is very specific. It should not be group counselling but should be individualised to a particular case and tailored to the needs and circumstances of an individual. It is not clear from what the Minister has brought forward on legal counselling that this will indeed be the case. We cannot have a situation where vulnerable applicants navigating deeply complex laws and procedures are only being provided with what the Minister is describing as legal counselling on a group basis or in the form of any generalised advice. It would not be appropriate and it would not fit the needs of these very vulnerable people. A situation like this would see many applicants unable to navigate the system. They would not be able to manage their cases appropriately and, in turn, this would lead to bad decisions being made.

Our goal is to ensure the law facilitates good decision-making, and all of us in the room would agree with this. Therefore, it is essential that those interacting with the system are empowered to do so in a way that not only protects their rights but leads to good decisions being made in line with the legislation and does not lead to challenges with appeals later. This means ensuring people have appropriate and proper supports available to them in the form of legal advice or individualised legal counselling, with clarity on exactly who is carrying out the legal counselling. Supports in the form of legal counselling must be bespoke and individual, and this is why we have tabled the amendment. I understand the Minister will not accept it but I really think we are failing people if we put them into group legal advice. We will be utterly failing them and they will not be able to get the proper support they need throughout this really complicated process.

We have tabled amendment No. 62 on the entitlement of the applicant, for the purposes of his or her application and for the purposes of any decision under the Act, to consult a legal adviser and seek legal assistance and legal representation. It is designed in order that applicants can be informed of their right to consult a legal adviser and seek legal assistance and legal representation throughout their application process. It is very clear and very important that they are informed of this. There has been significant confusion and concern throughout the passage of the Bill as to the level of legal assistance that will be provided during an incredibly complex legal process. While I am happy the Minister has belatedly tabled an amendment defining the concept of legal counselling, the fact remains we cannot accept a situation where there is any reduction to the level of legal assistance available to applicants.

We brought forward amendment No. 62 to make clear the need to inform the applicant of their rights and of the State's obligations. It is obvious that these rights should include the legal assistance rights of the applicant. International protection applicants are vulnerable people who are navigating complex legal processes. It is essential that they are informed of the assistance available to them. It is essential that this assistance is not reduced. It is all about better quality first-instance decision-making. This will reduce the likelihood of and the volume of appeals and result in a more efficient and cost-effective system. There is a human rights-based approach to having this legal system. There is a process lens to it as well in terms of ensuring the decisions that are made are proper, strong and robust and do not lead to more appeals later down the line. We can perhaps speak further on it when the Minister responds.

There was considerable discussion at the justice committee on what constitutes legal advice versus legal counsel. The definition proposed by the Minister in amendment No. 14 see here today is somewhat similar to what is required under the EU pact itself. However, it has significant additional add-ons. I will make some general observations on those add-ons to the definition set out in the amendment from subparagraph (iv) onwards. It appears that this has to do with determining what member state is responsible for determining a person's IP application. Without proper legal advice at this point, a person could find themselves transferred to another member state, possibly without good and lawful reason. At this important stage of a person's application process, not having the highest standard of legal advice could see the person sent to a different member state. Therefore, clarification on the reasoning is needed. We need to consider people who may have special reception needs or who may be specifically vulnerable in this regard, such as disabled persons, victims of trafficking, children and so on. Their requirements go above and beyond the requirement for legal counselling provided for in the pact. Given what is at stake, it should be done by qualified lawyers. I suggest that on Report Stage we will seek to delete subparagraph (iv), pending the Minister's contribution on this matter.

I suggest that subparagraph (i) in amendment No. 14 goes beyond the provision of information and guidance and tips into a requirement for legal advice. This can have serious and significant consequences for a person, especially a person with special reception needs who is being transferred to another EU member state. Such a person obviously would require legal advice and not legal counsel.

Subparagraph (vi) in amendment No. 14 relates to take-back requests. If the State believes that another EU member state should process an applicant's application for international protection, it can ask the relevant member state to take back the person under what is commonly referred to as the Dublin regulation system. Subparagraph (vi) proposes that legal counsellors should provide international protection applicants, including people with special reception needs such as disabled people, children and victims of trafficking, with information about how to fill out a template which may well result in them being transferred to another EU member state. It does not seem appropriate that legal counselling should deal with something of such significant consequence to international protection applicants, particularly people with special reception needs.

The Bill provides for legal counsel on request, as required by Article 16 of the asylum procedures regulation, APR. Crucially, however, it leaves out a provision for the exercise of State discretion under Recital 16 in the APR, which states:

It should also be possible for Member States to provide for free legal assistance and representation during the administrative procedure in accordance with national law.

There is nothing under the pact to stop the State from continuing to provide legal advice and assistance with regard to administrative procedures in the first instance - at the beginning stage - but it does not do so at present. Without provision for legal aid to allow people to get legal advice and assistance at the first stage, international protection applicants will not be properly advised going into the system at the outset. Recital 16 encourages member states to provide legal advice and assistance at all stages of the process. It states:

It is in the interests of both Member States and applicants that applicants receive at a very early stage comprehensive information on the procedure to be followed and on their rights and obligations. In addition, it is essential to ensure a correct recognition of international protection needs already at the [early] stage of the administrative procedure by providing good quality information and legal support which leads to more efficient and better quality decision-making. For that purpose, access to legal counselling, assistance and representation should be an integral part of the common procedure for international protection.

In this instance, the State is choosing not to do this, thereby creating risk for vulnerable applicants and making the cost and resource of intensive litigation inevitable.

The Bill proposes to amend the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 to include a definition of "legal counselling". Under the proposed new section 11B(1), the Legal Aid Board will decide who has the relevant "knowledge, experience, qualifications, training or expertise to provide legal counselling". To put it another way, it will decide who will not do so. There will be no State regulation of legal counsellors. It will be left up to the Legal Aid Board. Legal counsellors will then be unregulated in this country.

The proposed new section 11B(2) will allow the Legal Aid Board to contract legal counselling to "a person contracted by the Board". This could mean private solicitors or barristers. However, solicitors and barristers have professional duties and obligations to their clients. They will not be able to stop at providing legal counselling; they will also have to provide legal advice and representation. Without legal aid for that, it is not clear how it would work. As legal counsellors are not legally qualified persons - or if they are, they will not be acting in that capacity - they will not be covered by professional indemnity insurance, which means that as soon as someone asks for tailored individual advice about their particular application, the legal counsellor will have to decline to provide it.

Finally, the proposed new section 11B(4)(e) provides that legal counsellors can provide information and guidance on "the rights and obligations of applicants who are unaccompanied minors or in need of special procedural guarantees". These people are in the most vulnerable cohort of international protection applicants. It is not appropriate that legal counsellors should give information about this. In order to be able to give such information and guidance, legal counsellors would first have to ask questions to ascertain that a person is an under-age minor, or otherwise vulnerable. Without proper training, legal counsellors might retraumatise a vulnerable person. This cohort in particular needs legal advice and assistance at the first stage of the process.

We have all been awaiting the definition of "legal counselling". It has now come, but with a large set of concerns, as we have heard outlined. I want to delve a little bit more into the question of who a legal counsellor might be. Under the proposed definition, the "guidance, information or assistance" to be given by the legal counsellor is strictly limited. The Government sets out in amendment No. 14 that it may include "guidance on, and explanation of, the procedure in respect of an application, including information on the rights and obligations of the applicant" and "assistance with the lodging of an application". It does not give the scope that would come with actual legal advice that looks to the wider context. It literally just informs a person of the procedures.

In that context, we know it is unlikely to be solicitors or barristers delivering this because solicitors or barristers, in terms of their professional duty, would have an obligation to give all the relevant information. I indicate that we will be looking to ensure that all of the information relevant to persons in the context of applications and the law, not just in terms of procedures, but the national and international legal context in which they are operating, would be made available to people. There is no guarantee any of that will be given. In fact, there is quite a strict preclusion of what information will be given. It is also clear that legal counselling is, as we said, digital, group or individual, but it is not tailored to the individual. That was the point being made by Senator Stephenson. It is not giving individuals that kind of report. I worry that we have a new concept of legal counselling that we are trying out. We are experimenting with a new concept on an extremely vulnerable population, which in many cases will already be facing language barriers and so forth. We will be in a situation where you can imagine being asked if you would like legal counselling. You would say yes. This is why I strongly support amendment No. 60 from the cross-party group, which says you need to be informed of your rights to each of these different kinds of legal piece and you need to be told the difference between legal counselling and legal representation. Otherwise, you can see that people will believe they are getting legal advice tailored to them, when in fact they are getting advice, which is not from a legal professional, a solicitor or barrister, which does not include all relevant factors under the law but is simply constrained to passing on a small set of information about procedures. That will leave them high and dry when it comes to the complexities of their individual case.

It will fall to the Legal Aid Board to decide who is a legal counsellor and what qualification or experience they have. There is no oversight or regulation. We are trying out a new form. I note with concern that the Minister mentioned digital. We are aware of the previous experiments with chatbots maybe giving migration advice to people. It is concerning where it may be coming from and the form it is coming in, and what protections will be there against that kind of advice. My colleague has also spoken to the fact that not only are we trying out this new method of legal counselling but there are also those with special reception needs such as unaccompanied minors. I urge the Minister, when we come to Report Stage, that at minimum we look to ensure proper legal advice and representation for those in that vulnerable category. I do not believe that unaccompanied minors are in a position to say they will choose legal counselling over legal representation and know the difference and to have that difference communicated. We have a responsibility at every age. The Minister is aware that throughout our legal system that the State has to put the best interests of the child centre stage. That is an obligation. That should also include the best interests of the child in the case of unaccompanied minors and ensuring, in their best interests, that they are being given the best possible legal advice and representation.

I am concerned that the Minister said this is not to replace but to be supplementary to legal representation. However, amendment No. 15 changes the definition of legal representation, which is also a concern. We have legal counselling as this new concept constrained in what it can advise. We then have legal representation, and we might have thought we knew what it meant. The Bill previously said it meant a practising solicitor or barrister but that is being removed. Amendment No. 15 is changing the definition of legal representative. Not only are we seeing a shift in the definition of legal counselling, but we are seeing changes in the definition of legal representative. That leaves us with people being lucky enough to say they want they want the legal advice option defined in Bills. It is the luck of the draw which word they chose to put after legal, to determine what support they got. We know in practice that the legal aid system, in terms of proper legal advice and representation, is overstretched and under-resourced in that regard.

I also note others have pointed out the concern that because of the constraints that apply, there is a danger in the area of indemnity. Those legal counsellors will likely not be covered by indemnity insurance. Maybe the Minister will clarify if he imagines these legal counsellors will be covered by normal indemnity insurance as a practising solicitor or barrister will be. We will see a potential situation where individuals are looking for the customised advice they need and are being denied it by a legal counsellor who is frankly not covered or insured for that kind of thing in the way a normal practising solicitor or barrister would be. The Minister said last week that people can apply for legal advice but there is no provision for people at the first stage, so they are likely to have failed in their early attempts. What will happen is that we will see the Legal Aid Board flooded with applications seeking personalised legal advice and an administrative burden placed on it, and one which in likelihood it will be unable to provide.

My colleague has talked about the fact that we are allowed to provide legal representation. However, we should be clear that the actual regulation encourages the provision of proper legal representation. The asylum procedures regulation states clearly under Recital 16 that "It is in the interests of both Member States and applicants that applicants receive at a very early stage comprehensive information on the procedure to be followed and on their rights and obligations." It also states "It should also be possible for Member States to provide for free legal assistance and representation [which is a bar different from the counselling bar we are hearing from] during the administrative procedure in accordance with national law." I again wonder why the Minister, instead of properly resourcing and supporting the systems we have in terms of legal advice, assistance and representation, is experimenting with this new concept of legal counselling. The language given to us from European level is literally that of assistance and representation.

There are a number of other amendments in this area. Amendment No. 203 relates to section 81 of the Bill, which is where people are being notified of the Minister's decision to transfer a person to a different member state. They would notify, provide or communicate information to the person concerned and "any legal adviser or other counsellor representing". That is what it used to say. Now it is going to say, "legal representative". I understand the bar that we would like to see proper legal representatives dealing with the situation, for example, of a proposed transfer to another member state. My concern is that people do not have legal representation but a legal counsellor because at that early vulnerable point entering the system they were asked if they wanted legal counselling and said yes to that. They were not aware or made aware or supported in accessing proper legal representation. What is happening for those persons in terms of the notice of the transfer decision? Is that just going to the individual, and the legal counsellor who they thought was going to be helping them has just washed their hands and is not there? Will they be provided with access to legal representation at that point? Will there be measures in place where it is simply going to be the luck of the draw and that because they did not fight hard enough to get an actual lawyer, barrister or solicitor to help them early on, they are now being told we are deporting them? They will have nobody by their side because it turns out that legal counsellor was just somebody employed to press a few generic pieces of paper into their hands. What is happening in practice in situations like the transfer decision in section 81, where there is only provision for actual legally relevant support for those who may have got a legal representative? Under this legislation it seems that will likely become a narrower pool than is currently accessing legal representation.

I will make a few points on our amendments. Certainly I know that in cases I have been involved with in the past that fantastic local services in terms of legal advice were offered to people seeking asylum by local development partnerships, voluntary groups and NGOs. They were really useful in many cases. Interpreters had to be found locally, which brought its own challenges. This is going back several years in terms of asylum applications. It was almost a type of activity that grounded itself in local community support for asylum seekers when we would have considered the numbers to have been relatively low by European standards. I have a question about that. I am talking about the services provided by the Kilkenny LEADER partnership, for example, where they have migration support services, produce pamphlets in different languages, offer legal advice and have intercultural events for new communities. My question relates to the role of NGOs in all of this. The Bill sets out a lot of powers to the Minister of the day. This really seems to be a tenet of a lot of legislation the Government is bringing forward this term. Is there an active role there for advocacy services from NGOs, many of which right across the country are already providing services to people and families seeking asylum here?

There is also the question around the cultural mediator. That remains unclear. I welcome the clarification the Minister brought here today but this is a critical time in the process for people seeking asylum here, many of whom have young children and families of various generations. It is a really daunting process to come into a country where they do not know the legal landscape and or the cultural landscape. It needs to be a service that is supportive to their needs so they can have the best chance of putting their case forward. With the best of intentions, people with genuine applications can fall through the gaps on this. I have seen where genuine applications have fallen through the cracks and people have been deported to conflict zones or to difficult situations. For example, members of LGBTQI+ or other vulnerable groups can find it very difficult to go back to those countries.

I welcome the amendments being brought forward today. They belatedly define the concept of legal counselling and this provides some overdue clarity and reassurance. The fact remains, however, that we cannot accept a situation where there is any reduction in the level of legal assistance available to applicants. The Minister's amendment would not introduce any new concept into the Bill. Section 26 already lays out a wide range of rights and obligations that an applicant must be informed of. It is straightforwardly clear and obvious that we should include the legal assistance rights of the applicant. International protection applicants are vulnerable people navigating, as I said, complex legal processes. I would welcome some clarity on tha, particularly in relation to the role of NGOs and local advocacy services, many of which have been operating around the country and have grown into more streamlined services over recent years. This is a hugely important and critical part of the Bill that we need to get right. It needs to be right from a human rights perspective.

I thank the Senators for their contributions. Ireland does provide a lot of paid-for legal advice and legal representation to applicants for international protection at present. Anyone who has had an opportunity to look at the report of the Legal Aid Board will have seen that just less than 50% of the applications for civil legal aid received by the Legal Aid Board are in respect of international protection. When dealing with that issue, I obviously have to ensure that not all of the resources of the Legal Aid Board are eaten up by international protection, representation or aid. That is why in the budget I managed to allocate an extra €8 million for the purpose of extra funding for the Legal Aid Board. That is in recognition of the extra duties that are going to rest on the Legal Aid Board because of the changes being proposed in this legislation.

As indicated by Senators, it is the case, as I said earlier, that legal counselling is something new in Irish law. It will provide people with general advice and guidance on their application. That does not have to be legal advice. In many instances it is not legal advice, assistance or representation, which are set out elsewhere. The obligations we have under the regulations that govern the legislation I am debating here include at first instance a requirement on Ireland to provide legal counselling. The requirement under the regulations at first instance is to provide legal counselling. When it gets to appeal, there is an obligation on Ireland to provide legal representation. It is interesting when we look at the regulations that are being transposed by this Bill, whether it is the asylum procedures regulation or the asylum and migration management regulation, that both of them contain different definitions of what legal counselling is, which is something new not just for this country but for elsewhere as well. What we have sought to do in the proposed definition of legal counselling, which is contained within amendment No. 14, is to set out what in fact legal counselling will be, namely, "any guidance, information or assistance given to an applicant on matters relating to the application procedure by a person appointed under section 11B(1) of the Act of 1995, which is the Civil Legal Aid Act, to provide legal counselling". It goes on but I will pause there because one of the questions from Senator Stephenson related to who is going to be providing legal counselling. It will not have to be people who are legally qualified. In fact, it will probably be people who are paralegals or employees hired or contracted by the Legal Aid Board. That is appropriate when we look at what is required in respect of legal counselling. It is predominantly providing guidance on and explanation of the procedure for an application. That is factual advice a person can provide irrespective of whether they have legal qualifications as a practising barrister or solicitor.

Senator Noonan mentioned assistance with the lodging of an application. That is provided in many instances at present by advocacy groups or groups that are assisting applicants. Here, it will be the function of the legal counsellor. The function of legal counselling will be to provide guidance on the different procedures under which an application may be examined, the rules related to the admissibility, legal issues arising in the course of the procedure under which the application is examined, and guidance on and explanation of the criteria and procedure for determining the member states responsible in accordance with Part 4. That covers many of the issues raised by Senator Ruane when she wondered what would be covered by legal counselling in terms of the concerns she expressed. There will also be continuous guidance on and assistance with providing information that could help determine the member state responsible.

I want to emphasise, however, that just because the State is providing legal counselling, it does not mean an applicant cannot seek legal advice or legal aid. They can continue to seek legal aid. In many respects what is being provided for by legal counselling is an additional service that will be available to people who at present would not have that.

Members will also note that amendment No. 66 states, "An applicant may request legal counselling at any stage". It is important to note that they can be excluded from getting legal counselling if they are already being provided with or assisted by a legal representative. This is an area that has a lot of lawyers practising in it.

It will mean that under the Civil Legal Aid Act there will be a requirement for a person designated under the Act to provide legal counselling. It will be of use to applicants. I must also be conscious, however, that it is not something that inherently requires legal advice. It is about explaining to people who have come from a country and wishes to make an application for asylum that they have an obligation to set out their narrative clearly and honestly as to the basis upon which they are claiming asylum in Ireland. It will also explain to them that their application will be assessed under the accelerated procedure, the asylum border procedure or the other procedures available and that will be determined in a period of time. It will be beneficial and of assistance. It will speed up the process.

I must also be conscious of the general clause. I cannot provide mandatory legal aid and legal representation to everyone who comes to Ireland claiming asylum. I simply cannot do that because I do not have the resources. However, individuals can apply to the Legal Aid Board to be represented or to seek legal aid.

I want to put it in more practical terms and to understand it in a step-by-step manner for my own understanding. Amendment No. 14, at paragraph (c)(iv), provides for "guidance on and explanation of the criteria and procedure for determining the Member State responsible in accordance with Part 4". Are we saying that in a scenario where somebody is provided with legal counselling and where that person is not a regulated barrister or solicitor, in the contact between that legal counsel and the individual who is seeking international protection, the person providing legal counsel can make a determination or an assessment as to what member state is responsible for the international protection applicant? Where does that person then send that information? Where does that assessment go? If I were a legal counsel and engaged with someone and went through criteria and procedures with them, and I, a legal counsel but not a barrister or solicitor, determined that Ireland was not the member state responsible for this individual, would that person then automatically be transferred to another member state or would we at that point introduce proper representation from a legal perspective to make that serious legal determination about where someone's international protection application should be processed? I want to understand in a practical way. If the Minister was not a barrister or solicitor but was a legal counsellor, what would happen if he were to meet that individual and make that determination under amendment No. 14 in respect of the member state's responsibility? I want to understand in practical terms.

I, too, am a little confused. I want to clarify a point. With regard to this legal counselling, the business of immigration consulting has exploded over recent years. Is this is a legal framework that the Minister is putting in place to make sure that those people who are giving legal advice are accredited? That is what I want to know.

I want to ask about a similar point relating to amendment No. 12, which we have tabled, around defining "legal counselling" as to be provided by the Legal Aid Board. It speaks to Senator Keogan's question about who is qualified to do that. We have provided in the amendment that it must be somebody who gives oral or written advice and that person must be a practising solicitor or barrister, or person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide that counselling. I seek clarity on that.

I will deal first with Senator Ruane's question. As she will be aware, under Part 4, and in particular Chapter 2, which deals with the determination of the member state responsible, it is the Minister, namely, me, who determines the member state responsible in respect of the application. There is a process that continues in respect of that. Section 74 deals with the "Determination of Member State responsible - assessment whether applicant poses threat to internal security". Section 75 deals with a "Personal interview for determining Member State responsible". A statutory regime is set out there in Chapter 2 of Part 4. It involves the determination of which member state is responsible. In the first instance, that is obviously the determining authority, namely, me.

The only role that a legal counsellor will have in respect of that is that he or she will explain to the applicant, will give guidance on and explanation of the criteria and procedure for determining the member state responsible. The legal counsellors are not making any decision in respect of it. They are simply giving the applicants guidance as to what is meant by Chapter 2 of Part 4 in section 72, and onwards, and giving someone an indication that their application will be assessed and that there are certain relevant circumstances in respect of their application. It may be the case that the application could be determined to be the responsibility of another member state. No decision is being made by the counsellor. All he or she is doing is providing guidance in respect of it.

In response to Senator Ryan, when we look at the definition that Sinn Féin wanted to include, the likelihood, on the basis of what I have indicated, is that legal counselling will be provided by paralegals or employees of the Legal Aid Board. That is the likely basis upon which it will be provided.

In reply to Senator Keogan, this is a litigious and legally heavy area, but there will be an opportunity, by putting in this definition of "legal counselling", for people to be informed and provided with general advice, not legal advice but general advice, as to the procedure in place. That is of benefit to applicants because they will know what the procedure is and what their obligations are.

The likelihood is that counselling is going to be given by the Legal Aid Board, but that is not set in stone. That is what the Minister is saying. There could be a case where the advice does not come from somebody from the Legal Aid Board.

A couple of issues arise. We are told the advice is likely to come from employees of the Legal Aid Board. Perhaps a better approach would have been to say that it would come from employees of the Legal Aid Board. We could allocate the resources of the State and have a number of employees. We would then be in a situation where there could be a sense of accountability. With respect, the Minister has not addressed the concerns about the regulation or accountability of those providing this legal counselling. The Legal Aid Board is appointing the counsellors but they are not necessarily employees. They may be, but they may not be. Where is the accountability? A question was raised, for example, about indemnity insurance. I would like to know what the accountability structure is. If people get bad advice from a legal counsel and if they are told something that may affect your life - and it can be a matter of life and death for some - what recourse do they have? What is the route in that regard? What is the accountability structure? Does accountability lie with the Legal Aid Board? Perhaps we will define it so the counsellors are employees of the board. In that situation, it would become a matter for the board. Is there a question around indemnity insurance? We have heard it is unlikely they would get indemnity insurance. That accountability piece is key and remains a question.

Other key questions have not been addressed. Amendment No. 60 from the Cross-Party Group is a very good amendment. It states that people should be told what legal counselling is and their rights in that regard, what legal assistance is and their rights in that regard and what legal representation is and their rights in that regard.

It provides that they would be announced and given as key information at the same time. I am concerned. We know the situation and how people operate, even the line that there is an argument for it as a money-saving measure, that people would be excluded from the legal counselling if they have legal representation. We can imagine in a situation where an individual is told that if they go for legal representation, if they come in with a solicitor or a barrister or whatever, they are not going to be entitled to legal counselling. That could feel like the language of exclusion, threatening, making them feel they may be making a mistake or doing something wrong. That is the way people may feel when they are trying to navigate a bureaucracy, not because they love or choose bureaucracy but because they are put in a situation where they are having to seek asylum in many cases and they are trying to navigate that. I am worried that there is a disincentive to legal representation that may come - perhaps inadvertently and perhaps intentionally; I do not know - from that exclusionary language around the legal counselling piece. Somebody might say they are afraid to get legal representation because they are being told that it will exclude them from legal counselling, and they will not get the information they need about the process. Like many people when they land, not many people are familiar with the law until they find themselves trying to navigate it. Amendment No. 60 was a very sensible one which made it clear what the three things were at the same time. I would like the Minister's views on accepting that amendment.

I would also like if we could have clarity about the point in respect of unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable people in particular and that question of legal counselling. Is it only at the point of appeal that an unaccompanied minor is going to get it? I know there is this concern about the representatives that unaccompanied minors are entitled to. They say they are entitled to have an assigned representative but the Government's amendments Nos. 101 and 102 later remove the requirement for those individuals to have the necessary skills or expertise. It allows that an individual representative may represent up to 30 minors at once. Is there not a danger that we create a situation where minors are effectively only getting legal counselling and not being supported in terms of accessing legal representation, given that special duty of care and the rights of the child, which we put into the Constitution collectively just a short few years ago in this State? There is that duty in terms of the best interest of the child. I would like if the Minister could elaborate on best interest, regulation, accountability and that question of clear information as to the multiple options.

I just want to make a quick point on that and particularly in respect of our amendment No. 60. I mentioned local development partnerships previously, which are already in arrangements through SICAP funding at local level. Many people seeking asylum will find themselves in direct provision in Ballaghaderreen, Cahersiveen and Kilkenny. The local development companies already exist. I am just thinking purely from a resource point of view, for the Legal Aid Board, that there might be a mechanism in terms of legal assistance through some kind of formalised arrangement with local development companies where even volunteers with legal expertise could be part of that process. As I said, there has already been a mechanism by which such informal practices have taken place. If there were some means of formalising an arrangement with local development partnerships, there is an infrastructure already there. It might be useful in terms of expediency but also in ensuring a more robust process.

The words used there were "likely to be a paralegal." I am really concerned about that. There are many people around the country who are seeking asylum at this moment and going through the immigration process with unscrupulous immigration consultants who do not have a legal background at all. They end up paying out thousands to these people. It is important that legal counselling is coming from accredited individuals, licensed individuals, to stop that happening. I do not know how the Minister is going to do that. These are the most vulnerable people who are coming to our country. Tomorrow morning I could go out and set up an immigration consultancy, and off I go and charge anybody any amount I like. That is what is happening in this country at this time and there is no accreditation framework to stop those people acting in this way.

I have two very quick further questions. On section 81, as we were saying previously, if somebody is proposed to be removed to a different member state, they would be notified. The Minister then changed it from "legal counselling" to just "legal representative". Could he clarify what the intention is there and what happens to persons who do not have a legal representative when their removal is proposed? Will they believe that the legal counsellor is going to know what is happening to them? Will they be given an opportunity to seek legal representation? What is happening at that point? Second, on Government amendment No. 15, I refer to the rationale for the removal of the language, the removal of the specific legal representation definition, to remove the phrase "practising barrister or practising solicitor" and to delete that from the definition of legal representation. This is not legal counselling but legal representation. Could the Minister talk through the logic on that?

I would prefer to respond to Senators individually. I know the House does not do it that way but it would be easier in the long run for me and for the Senators as well to get a full and adequate response. Senator Higgins, in terms of section 81, "legal representative" is going to be a stronger term and a stronger provision for the applicant. Second, in terms of the unaccompanied, minor, as the Senator knows, I will be designating a competent authority as having responsibility for looking after an unaccompanied minor as they go through the process of making their application. That is a role that in part is carried out by Tusla at present and it will be extended under the Bill once it is enacted.

In terms of what Senators Ryan and Higgins said, maybe I was too cautious in my language by saying the likelihood is that it will be through the Legal Aid Board. It will always be through the Legal Aid Board is probably what I can say to the Senators. Whoever is providing the legal counselling will be providing it through the auspices or under the authority of the Legal Aid Board. They may not be a qualified solicitor or barrister but they will be coming within the parameters of the Legal Aid Board. In terms of indemnity or accountability for it, obviously the Legal Aid Board in providing counselling has obligations to ensure that the counselling it provides is accurate, as it should be.

Senator Noonan spoke about his amendment No. 60. It is too broad in terms of giving an applicant at first instance a right to receive legal representation. That would place far too much of a financial obligation on the State. People can seek legal assistance or legal advice. They are guaranteed to get legal counselling.

Finally, in respect of the issue raised by Senator Higgins, I do not think what is proposed is unfair in circumstances in which somebody who is receiving legal aid and legal representation turns around and says they need legal counselling as well. Certainly legal aid and legal representation is probably stronger from the point of view of the applicant compared to the counselling that is being provided. It is only fair on the State to say that those who have legal aid and legal representation cannot then come demanding legal counselling. The likelihood and the rule is that everyone will get legal counselling in the first instance.

Just to reiterate in respect of minors that the Government's later amendments - amendment No. 102 and others - remove the requirement for the particular necessary skills and expertise in the persons who are providing that representation to the minor. They also allow that somebody may be representing up to 30 minors. I do not believe that adequately addresses the concern. On amendment No. 60, if the Minister feels that the language "shall be entitled to", I think the key thing is that they would be told of their right to seek legal representation.

The crucial point is that people be informed of that at the same time as they are being informed about legal counselling rather than people, as I have said, who will be receiving legal counselling and in the belief they are getting legal advice when they are not actually getting legal advice.

Again, my concern was not around refusal. My concern is not around the situation of those receiving legal representation also wanting legal counselling. My concern is that we create a disincentive to seeking legal representation. I am concerned that there may be a possibly inadvertent dissuasive effect if people are overly informed that if they go for legal representation, it will cause problems for them, for example. I am concerned about whether that becomes the narrative. I am concerned that people may access legal counselling and may be made afraid to seek legal representation or feel that they will lose something or will make a misstep. That is why clarity is required in respect of legal representation, legal counselling and legal assistance. People need to know what they are and what their rights may be. There may not be a right to receive but a right to seek. Perhaps the Minister will indicate if he thinks the language in amendment No. 60 is too broad and will bring his own nuanced version of that on Report Stage because it is key to have clear information from the outset. I still have concerns as to how this is likely to play out.

Very briefly in reply, because I am conscious there are other amendments, in response to Senator Higgins, there is a very clear definition of legal counselling set out in amendment No. 14. It is extremely detailed. It is very clear what legal counselling involves.

Finally, the Senator spoke about the removal of rights in respect of children. There may be some confusion there. What is happening in terms of certain provisions in the Bill, they are not being removed; they are being moved to a different part of the legislation. No rights that unaccompanied minors had are being removed from it. They are being moved to different parts of the provision and I think they went in with the reception conditions part of the legislation.

Amendments Nos. 7, 141 and 306 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendment No. 7 is a technical amendment to update the referencing in the Bill. The asylum procedures regulation was amended on 24 February of this year by two EU regulations regarding the application of the concept of a safe third country and the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at European level. These are EU Regulations 2026/463 and 2026/464.

Section 2 is the interpretation section of the Bill giving definitions for terms used throughout the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to insert the most up to date reference to the asylum procedures regulation.

The Minister might apologise as I need a clarification because these amendments came quite late. As the Minister will know, we had a number of areas of the migration pact which came through, which we opted into and did not opt into as yet.

In these amended regulations, when we talk about safe countries and so forth, can the Minister confirm that this does not include the instance, which I think was set out previously, as one of the aspects of the migration pact which we did not opt into? I think it was the correct decision to not opt into it as yet. The instance said that there could be safe countries which were third countries with which the EU had an arrangement, maybe one of the countries to which persons could migrate. The Minister might remember.

Does the Senator mean return hubs?

No, it was a question whereby there are other member states-----

Yes.

-----there is the state of origin and then there was an optional provision from the European Union, which looked to countries with which the European Union has an arrangement. It is effectively the El Salvador or Rwanda amendment whereby persons are being potentially deported to countries with which they have no meaningful connection but with which the EU has an arrangement. When we previously transposed other aspects of the migration pact, that aspect was not. I ask the Minister to please confirm whether in terms of amendment No. 7 that that is still the instance and that in safe countries, we are not looking at situations of deportations to countries to which the person does not have a connection but the EU simply has an arrangement. I am being straightforward in saying I do not know and seek a clarification.

My understanding is that the regulations did also deal with that issue. We are not opting into that, however, as it is optional, so it is of no concern.

Exactly. That is what I wanted to reconfirm. I thank the Minister.

Sorry, we did opt in but we are not going to provide for it, I am instructed.

Please repeat that, Minister.

We did opt in but we are not going to provide for it, is my understanding.

My apologies but I do need clarity. Previously, a number of sections came through. We opted into, I think, four out of five or three out of four. I am trying to recall it at a certain point. There was one that we did not opt into. Is the Minister saying we did opt into that one, which allows for a person to be deported to a third safe country?

We did opt into the safe third country and the safe country of origin. We did not opt into the returns regulation or the returns hub aspect of it. That is what I am informed. We did not opt into it.

A returns hub.

A "returns hub" is a term that is used. As the Senator will know, the European Union at present is proposing a returns regulation.

Yes.

That has not been agreed. It is in discussion at present. In terms of identifying third countries outside the EU to where failed asylum applicants would be sent, that is something that is proposed by the Commission in the draft returns regulation, which has not become a regulation as of yet. That is not an issue that is a live issue, if that is the issue of concern to the Senator.

Yes. To clarify, if effectively we accept this particular definition, we are not in a situation whereby a person whose asylum application is rejected may be deported.

Sent to Albania or somewhere.

Yes, sent to a non-EU country to which these people do not have a connection.

That will not apply, no.

I am sure that the Minister understands that these matters are moving quite rapidly and I want to ensure that we did not inadvertently agree to that.

The matter has been clarified.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 18, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“ “Common Travel Area” means the area consisting of the State and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of which the nationals of either jurisdiction generally have freedom to travel from one jurisdiction to the other and to reside there without any visa or residence permit;”.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 269 to 273, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

These amendments relate to the rights of beneficiaries of international protection. I have brought forward amendments Nos. 9 and 271.

Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment which defines "guardian" as having the same meaning as in the qualifications regulation. The purpose of amendment No. 271 is to allow for amendments to the Children First Act 2015 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, which will be brought forward on Report Stage and will rely on this definition.

Amendments Nos. 269, 270 and 273 are technical amendments to section 144. Section 144 sets out certain rights to which beneficiaries of international protection are entitled once they have been granted protection under the Bill. These amendments make clear that beneficiaries of international protection are entitled to housing benefits on the same basis as Irish citizens, which is a requirement under the qualification regulation. The term "housing benefits" is defined by reference to the appropriate housing legislation.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 272. It proposes to remove any obligation to participate in integration measures on beneficiaries of international protection. While participation in integration measures in Ireland is on a voluntary basis at present, the qualification regulation enables member states to introduce compulsory integration measures.

Amendment No. 269 seeks the deletion of “and the same social welfare”, and the substitution of ", social welfare”. Can I clarify that this is in relation to successful IP applications? Are we then removing the equality of social welfare access by removing “and the same social welfare”, and substituting ", social welfare” even though the applications are successful? What is intended by the removal of “and the same social welfare”?

It is for beneficiaries of international protection. It is setting out the rights to which they are entitled once they have been granted protection under the Bill. Amendment No. 269 simply deletes, “and the same social welfare”, and substitutes, “, social welfare”, so there is no significant alteration in respect of what is being proposed there.

It does not remove the bar on giving a varied, reduced amount of social welfare depending on someone being an applicant. I am wondering why the word "same" is being removed.

They are still entitled to the same social welfare. If we look at section 144, it talks about the extension to beneficiaries of international protection of certain rights. These include rights in terms of conditions applicable to Irish citizens, including "the same medical care and the same social welfare benefits".

Okay.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 20, line 3, after “2004” to insert the following:

“and any immigration officer performing functions conferred on him or her by this Act shall, if requested by a person affected, produce the warrant of appointment or a copy of it to that person”.

Before I talk about this amendment, I want to return to clarify the response to Senator Ruane's last question. Regarding what the Minister read out concerning social welfare, is that staying in the Bill or is that the bit being changed?

The words, "social welfare" will remain, and "the same" is being removed.

I suppose there is then a question of there being a two-tier system. Again, these would be people found to be successful international protection applicants. I think there is still a concern but I know we are a long way from voting on amendment No. 269. I want to indicate now, though, because this might be our only chance to say it, that I have concerns if we end up with intentionally punitive social welfare provisions for those who are found to be successful asylum seekers, legitimately seeking international protection. It would be a significant move away from the basic equality of treatment in our social welfare system. I will be opposing it.

Turning back to amendment No. 10, this reads:

In page 20, line 3, after “2004” to insert the following: “and any immigration officer performing functions conferred on him or her by this Act shall, if requested by a person affected, produce the warrant of appointment or a copy of it to that person”.

Immigration officers are given very wide-ranging and significant powers under this Bill, including the power to detain people and children without a warrant and rights to detain people in a variety of different situations, including in a car. We will come to some of that later. It is inevitable, though, that we will find immigration officers in complex situations making decisions about another person’s freedom and liberty. There are significant concerns about the requisite levels of training that immigration officers performing the functions set out under this Bill will be required to have and again in terms of accountability.

This particular amendment seeks to ensure that immigration officers who are performing functions under this Bill will be required to identify themselves to a person affected on request. Currently, immigration officers are appointed under the Immigration Act 2004. This Act requires them to identify themselves in their duties but that provision only applies to functions performed under that Act. Immigration officers are required to identify themselves when they are performing functions relating to the Immigration Act 2004, but that same obligation is not specified in this Bill. Our proposed amendment would simply carry the same requirement that is there under the 2004 Act forward into this Bill, ensuring that immigration officers performing functions under this Bill would have that same obligation to identify themselves on request. It seems like a small thing but it is a very significant thing. We have seen what has happened in the United States, for example, and none of us would have believed it. When we say, “Oh, that would not happen here”, I do not think they would have believed it would have happened there either. Masked ICE agents employed by the state refuse to identify themselves and roam the streets, where they can detain people without warrants or due process and who simply do not have to identify themselves and will not, in fact, even show their faces.

As drafted, the Bill inadvertently sets the possibility of something similar here. The Bill allows for immigration officers to detain persons to determine their identity or nationality. This is something we will come to, but it is quite an outrage. It will be possible to detain persons, and this will not solely be persons who are in the international protection system. We should mention this point. It is a wider power that is being conferred on immigration officers. It is not limited. If we look to the United States, we see Somalis, for example, being picked out and targeted, as well as others. There is that kind of danger there. It is not limited just to applicants for immigration protection. As the Bill is drafted, this provision could feasibly be extended to anybody who is lawfully resident whom one of these newly appointed immigration officers determines they wish to detain and examine their identity. This would not be somebody that immigration officers would know they have a reason to detain. It would be somebody whom they do not know and whose identity they do not know. In terms of how the powers are worded, they are worded so widely.

There are significant questions to be asked about who these immigration officers will be. Section 217 of the Bill allows a Minister to enter into contracts for services for these functions. Will the immigration officers be privately contracted? Will they be part of the Garda National Immigration Bureau? Will they be part of a border management unit? Will they be moving separately and freely, as we have seen in the case of ICE in America, where they operate in a completely separate system? Where will the accountability be?

It is critically important, however likely or unlikely the Minister might think these scenarios may be, that we look to what the Bill provides for and what it does not provide for. Right now, the Bill provides for very wide-ranging and significant powers for individuals who are appointed as immigration officers. What it does not allow for is clarity around exactly how they will be trained and whether they will be public employees or may be privately contracted. It also does not require and set out a requirement that they will be willing to identify themselves if requested by a person who is affected or, indeed, that they will provide their warrant of appointment or a copy of it to that person. I would like the Minister to clarify these issues, particularly those in relation to the training and concerning the question of whether there is a willingness to extend the same basic requirement that is in the Immigration Act 2004 into this Act.

I will briefly reiterate some of the points made by Senator Higgins. Whatever the intention of what we do here, it is obviously about how it can be applied, even without that being the intent. It is very worrying for me that the State or the Department can enter into contracts in relation to immigration officers. I think it needs to be said on this floor but also captured in the legislation that we do not end up with a system of privatised immigration officers.

I know it feels hard to imagine a scenario here, but we do only have to look at the videos on our phones and elsewhere to see where people in the western world are being racially profiled, especially because of the colour of their skin. What will happen if people do not have their ID on them, for whatever reason or they do not have a way to prove in that very moment who they are? There is power here that would allow immigration officers to detain somebody until they can prove who they are. Basically, we would have Irish citizens or people in the international protection application system being held to prove whether they should or should not be here in Ireland. It is a scary prospect to think that could happen and we should make sure we do not allow for this in this legislation.

We spoke earlier about the accountability mechanism of legal counsel. What will be the accountability mechanism for immigration officers if the State enters into a contract? Who are we saying the State would enter into a contract with for people to become immigration officers? I read an article a few months back by a journalist in the United States who did an investigation and mapped out how easy it was to become an ICE officer. These are not people who are initially employed by the State. It is possible to apply to be an ICE officer with very few checks, with a person’s ideologies or whatever they think not being taken into account. As Senator Higgins said, this is not taken into account in relation to training.

We must be very clear on who we intend to be immigration officers. If they detain somebody who does not have identification and must prove who they are, where are we saying they are going to be detained? How is that going to play out in reality? I also reiterate the point about the need to produce a warrant and say exactly who you are before you start detaining people and stopping people to prove their identity.

I thank Senators Higgins, Ruane and Black for the amendment It is important to recall that the amendment is seeking to amend what is still a provision within section 2, which is the definition section. The definition the proposed amendment seeks to deal with is the definition of "immigration officer" and the Bill, at present, simply states "immigration officer” has the meaning it has in the Act of 2004. That should be the case. It should be the case that there is consistency in our legislation. It would look very unusual for this amendment the Senators are proposing to be in a definitions section. The definitions section simply sets out what the terms in the Bill actually mean. "Immigration officer” has the meaning it has in the Act of 2004, meaning the Immigration Act 2004. What is being proposed with this amendment is that after that we would include: "and any immigration officer performing functions conferred on him or her by this Act shall, if requested by a person affected, produce the warrant of appointment or a copy of it to that person". I do not have a problem with the substance of what is there but it would look very unusual and anomalous to include what is in effect an operative provision in a definitions section.

I was also looking on the Internet to see whether within the Immigration Act there is such a provision as is required here. I think there is a requirement to produce the warrant if it is requested but I just could not find it. The amendment is not appropriate here. I will examine the 2004 legislation to see if it is there and if it is not, I will give consideration to this on Report Stage.

I know the Senators did not intend this, but we are not in a situation similar to what is happening in the United States. Immigration officers, whether they are gardaí or officials from the Department of justice, exercise their considerable powers very responsibly and professionally and with due regard for the sensitivities and rights of the individuals concerned.

I appreciate the Minister is indicating that this is provided for in the 2004 Act, but the problem is that it is limited to the functions of the 2004 Act, so it would need to be explicitly inserted in this Bill. We are very happy to engage with the Minister and find an agreed location for that point, but it is crucial that it be named and included. If the simple issue is around the location of it, let us work together to find another location. I do not want us to come to Report Stage and end up with a Bill that does not do this. Could the Minister indicate if he is happy to work between Committee and Report Stages to ensure that we find an agreed and appropriate location, or, indeed, a wording? We have tried to go as closely as possible to the language of the 2004 Act.

Could the Minister also address the question we raised around training? While he referenced officials from the Department, An Garda Síochána and the performance of their powers, our concern relates to the new powers. Sometimes we talk about how something is now and say that is why we should not be concerned about the new thing we are going to do, but the new thing is a new thing. We are talking about contracting. This is a change where we are talking about contracting for services. That is why we need a bit more clarity about exactly who will be contracted. Could it be private contracting? Where will the accountability be in that? How do we avoid, for example, perverse incentives? We have seen with ICE where there are quotas for how many people their agents have managed to detain. This concerns that kind of scenario if we have a contract of services. The Minister can understand that this is not a reflection on officials or An Garda Síochána doing their job now; this is a concern about the new proposed methodology for the appointment of immigration officers, which is through a contract of service, and that is where we want clarity on the training and on exactly who they will be.

I will consider the issue about the production of the warrant within the Department. Irrespective of that, the definitions section is the wrong place to put it. I will consider it and discuss it with my officials. If it is deemed necessary, I will bring forward an amendment at Report Stage. I am not going into operational detail now as to who would be the immigration officers as it would not be appropriate. We are setting out the architecture of the legislation. No matter who the immigration officers are or what the basis under which they are employed is, whether they are gardaí, Department of justice officials or are contracted, they will all have to comply with obligations in ensuring that the law is upheld and that the human rights of individuals are respected. Looking at the history of immigration officers in Ireland to date, that has been the case and there is no reason to believe that will be departed from in the future.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 20, between lines 15 and 16, 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;”.

One Senator voted twice but it has been rectified. As the time has now passed 7.45 p.m.-----

Before we finish, I do not know whether we got a chance or not to congratulate Senator Cathal Byrne on his recent marriage. I do not know whether we did or not but I want to extend our congratulations from this side of the House.