Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 29 of 84.
“It requires people to show an ability to pay for and look after the individuals who have arrived here as part of their family. Separately, there is the refugee application for family reunification. This is not governed by the EU migration pact; it is a sovereign decision we can make if it is decided to support it. The change I am proposing is that individuals granted refugee status in Ireland will have to wait two years to apply to bring their family over to Ireland. Similarly, like people in the non-EEA mechanism, they will have to be able to show they have the means to pay for and care for them. That is not an unreasonable position for the State to adopt. We are an extremely generous State in terms of granting asylum but it is too much to say that family members brought over should be paid for by the State as well.”
“I updated and changed that last year. The policy applies in circumstances where people come to Ireland to work as nurses, carers or doctors and, having been here for a number of years, apply for family reunification. Under that process, they have to be able to show that if they bring their relatives over from the other country to live in Ireland, they will be able to pay for the upkeep of their relative once they have arrived in Ireland. That is reasonable. It is the balancing of rights. I have to ensure the State does not end up picking up the cost of looking after individuals who have come here and will then require many of the services we all know are under pressure. That is the non-EEA family reunification process.”
“I have openly stated that I want to try to reduce the number of people coming into Ireland claiming asylum in circumstances where many are subsequently found not be entitled to it. The point I have made is that there are too many people claiming asylum who are not entitled to it. That has been subsequently adjudicated to be the case. That is my objective. I have tried to shift the balance in a particular way in favour of the State. That brings me to the first issue raised by Deputy Gannon, namely family reunification. Family reunification is an issue very much premised on the rights of the asylum applicant or in this instance the refugee who has been granted status. In Ireland, there are two or possibly more methods of achieving family reunification. The first is via the non-EEA family reunification policy.”
“I thank Deputies Gannon and Carthy for their contributions. As an overview, when it comes to legislation like this, I, as Minister - I presume this is also the case for the House - have to try to balance conflicting rights. When dealing with international protection legislation, on one hand, we have to take into account the interests of the applicant claiming they are fleeing persecution or war to seek refuge in Ireland. On the other hand, I have to try to balance the interests of the State because, as Deputy Carthy indicated, there are huge costs involved in providing accommodation for individuals who seek international protection. The primary driver of the costs involved is the number of applicants coming in. In 2024, 18,500 people applied for international protection in Ireland.”
“Where such an incident or event occurs in an accommodation centre, the service provider must notify the monitoring body within three days of the date on which the incident occurred. In the case of an unexpected absence of a minor, the service provider concerned shall notify the monitoring body within 24 hours of becoming aware of the absence of the minor. Seanad amendment No. 127 is a technical amendment to correct reference to new sections that give effect to the reception conditions directive. Finally, I proposed Seanad amendment No. 226 to propose to reflect the fact that a body other than HIQA can be designated as the body responsible for monitoring accommodation centres and that this should be reflected in the provision for membership of the advisory board for the chief inspector of asylum and border procedures.”
“An accommodation centre that is subject to an inspection may need to give the authorised person information that is reasonably required for the purposes of the functions of an authorised person. Seanad amendment No. 86 provides that an individual who prevents an authorised person entering such a dwelling is guilty of an offence. To ensure high standards are upheld in the provision of accommodation, I am introducing amendment No. 87 to allow for a report to be prepared by individual who inspect accommodation centres. Seanad amendment No. 88 provides that the monitoring body shall be notified within 21 days of applicants being allocated to an accommodation centre. To ensure the well-being of applicants, amendment No. 89 provides for a requirement for notifying the monitoring body of any serious incident that takes place in the centre.”
“83 provides for the monitoring body may require a service provider to provide it with any information it considers necessary in order to determine the level of compliance by the service provider with the standards. Seanad amendment No. 84 provides that the monitoring body may appoint employees to be authorised persons for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill to ensure applicants are living in safe and adequately managed accommodation. Seanad amendment No. 85 provides for the inspection of centres used to house those seeking international protection. An authorised person is permitted to enter and inspect a premises with the consent of the occupier or pursuant to a warrant.”
“All offers are reviewed by the Department under a standardised appraisal procedure which aligns with processes in place for the award of State contracts across Departments and sectors. A team appraises each offer to accommodate people seeking international protection and the Department does carry out due diligence. All properties are subject to pre-occupancy inspections to ensure they adhere to standards. All new centres are supported by the community engagement unit. The engagement process is co-designed with the local authority. I am committed to ensuring local communities' access to accurate information and that structures to plan for the provision of essential services support are in place. Seanad amendment No.”
“79 creates a regulation-making power for an appeal of a reduction or withdrawal. Seanad amendment No. 80 provides the definitions for the terms used in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill. I am introducing amendment No. 81 which provides for the designation of a public body to be the monitoring body for the purpose of monitoring accommodation centres. HIQA is designated as the monitoring body until another public body is designated and it is the one that has responsibility under the 2018 reception conditions. Seanad amendment No. 82 provides that I may set national standards for accommodation offered to people in IPAS. Regarding Deputy Carthy's three amendments to amendment No. 82, I do not propose to accept them. The Department received offers of international protection accommodation on an ongoing basis from external commercial providers.”
“75 provides for the definitions of "material reception benefits" and " section 82 decision". Seanad amendment No. 76 provides the grounds on which I can reduce or withdraw an applicant's material reception conditions or the Minister for Social Protection may reduce or withdraw an applicant's daily expenses allowance. Seanad amendment No. 77 provides for the requirements that must be adhered to where I or the Minister for Social Protection make a decision under amendment No. 78. This includes the need to inform the applicant of the reasons for the reduction or withdrawal of supports. Seanad amendment No. 78 permits me or the Minister for Social Protection to restore or partially restore an applicant's material reception benefits after a determination that the applicant's conduct has ceased. Seanad amendment No.”
“Such companies are contractually obliged to ensure interpreters possess the qualifications and competence appropriate to the tasks for which they are employed. It is important applicants receive access to information on their entitlements to material reception conditions as soon as possible. As such, I am introducing Seanad amendment No. 72, which states the applicant must receive this information within three days. To ensure there is a clear set of rules for IPAS accommodation I am introducing Seanad amendment No. 73, which provides for the making of rules in relation to an accommodation centre. Seanad amendment No. 74 provides that a travel document may be issued to an applicant where there are serious humanitarian reasons or other reasons that require the applicant's presence in another state. Seanad amendment No.”
“69 permits the Minister for further education to make arrangements to ensure applicants have access to courses. Seanad amendment No. 70 is a substantive amendment that seeks to ensure applicants have access to adequate levels of healthcare. To ensure special reception needs are identified as early as possible I am introducing Seanad amendment No. 71. I cannot accept Deputy Carthy's amendment to Seanad amendment No. 71 as there are currently no nationally prescribed applicable qualifications to be an interpreter in Ireland, regardless of whether those interpretation services are provided to international protection applicants or to other persons. Interpretation services are made available to applicants by translation and interpretation companies contracted by the IPO.”
“The treatment of minors and their well-being during the international protection process is of importance to the Government. As such I am introducing Seanad amendment No. 67 which provides for key considerations to be taken into account when dealing with the reception needs of minors. This amendment provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration with regard to the reception needs of minors. As with the previous amendment, this Government wants to ensure minors going through the process can avail of services that will help their development and provide education. Seanad amendment No. 68 provides that minors are provided with the same access to primary and post-primary education and other supports. To ensure applicants are provided with the opportunity to integrate, Seanad amendment No.”
“66, my Department operates a high degree of transparency in relation to IPAS and centres. Any restriction on publication is based on residents' security, safety or privacy or commercially sensitive information the publication of which would damage the State's ability to achieve good value for money. My Department publishes figures detailing the number of residents in centres, with a breakdown of numbers of emergency accommodation centres on a weekly basis. There is full transparency from the Department in terms of providers receiving payments, with details of all payments over €20,000 and the recipients published quarterly on gov.ie. Inspection reports from all IPAS accommodation centres are published either on hiqa.ie or gov.ie and therefore it is not necessary to accept the Deputy's amendment.”
“65 has been ruled out of order but I did not intend to accept it as it is overly restrictive to say such services cannot be provided by any for-profit provider, may significantly hinder the provision of material reception conditions to minors and therefore negatively impact the very people the system should be aiming to protect. I am proposing the introduction of Seanad amendment No. 66 to ensure the adequate organisation of the State's reception system. This amendment provides that certain matters must be considered before allocating accommodation, including family unity, gender- and age-specific concerns, the special reception needs of the applicant, the efficient consideration of the applicant's application and the prevention of assault and violence to the applicant. Regarding Deputy Carthy's amendment to Seanad amendment No.”
“As the reception conditions directive is applicable to all international protection applicants, this amendment will ensure applicants who have made an application under the 2015 Act will also be able to avail of material reception conditions under this Bill. Seanad amendment No. 65 aims to ensure material reception conditions are provided to applicants to guarantee they have an adequate standard of living while in the State. It is essential applicants receive this while ensuring those with the financial means pay for themselves. Deputy Carthy's amendment to Seanad amendment No.”
“The proposed new Part 4 of the Bill gives effect to the reception conditions provisions of the reception conditions directive. Seanad amendment No. 63 provides for the definition section of Part 4 to include definitions of "accommodation centre", "clothing allowance", "daily expenses allowance", "family member", "house rules" and "material reception conditions". Seanad amendment No. 64 proposes that the provision of material reception conditions and the monitoring of reception conditions in Chapters 2 and 3, respectively, will apply to an applicant who is present in the State and not the subject of a transfer decision or a return decision.”
“This is to ensure that even if an applicant was initially authorised to enter the State and their application is being examined under a different procedure, when information relevant to public order or national security comes to light at a later stage that applicant can be placed in the asylum border procedure with its associated restrictions of freedom of movement. Seanad amendments Nos. 60 and 157 are technical amendments introduced to clarify cross-references to the new section proposed to be inserted by Seanad amendment No. 58.”
“There are exceptions to allow for an applicant to be permitted to enter the State when the deadline for the asylum border procedure expires and the applicant has not received a final decision on their application and for those applicants for whom the inadmissibility of accelerated procedure no longer apply. Exceptions apply also for applicants whose special reception or special procedural needs cannot be met in the border procedure or where there are medical reasons for not applying the asylum border procedure. Subsection (3) provides that the Minister may revoke an authorisation given to an applicant where the determining authority becomes aware an applicant poses a national security or public order threat. In such cases, once the authorisation is revoked the applicant will be deemed never to have been given an authorisation.”
“Subsection (2) clarifies that an authorisation to enter shall not be given to applicants who no longer have a right to remain in the State because they made subsequent applications to delay or frustrate their removal from the State or because they are considered a danger to public order or national security, or those applicants who do not have the right to remain pending their appeal to the tribunal. The other category of applicants who shall not be authorised to enter are those whose applications are being examined under the asylum border procedure.”
“The purpose of Seanad amendment No. 58 is to give further effect to procedures regulation provisions relating to non-entry to the State of applicants subject to the asylum border procedure. Article 43.1 of that regulation provides that the asylum border procedure may be applied only where an applicant has not yet been authorised to enter the state. It is necessary to provide in the Bill for the distinction under the asylum procedures regulation between asylum border procedure applicants and other categories of applicants. Subsection (1) provides that following the screening carried out under Part 2, I as Minister shall give applicants an authorisation to enter the State for the sole purpose of having their application examined. This provision is very similar to the current provision in section 16 of the 2015 Act.”
“It is a real challenge if somebody says they are an unaccompanied minor and yet the State thinks that is not the case. People can criticise the State all the time by saying we got it wrong by putting adults in with unaccompanied minors, but we are very much dependent on people being honest and stating accurately what their age is. In circumstances where people provide documentation that suggests they are minors and it subsequently transpires they are not, there should be some appreciation of the difficult position the State finds itself in.”
“I would ask for a bit of - "sympathy" may be the wrong word - appreciation of the challenges that Tusla and other State authorities face. If a person arrives at the International Protection Office, claims asylum and says that they are 17 years of age, if there is then an issue about their age or if there is a question mark over it, there obviously has to be some process put in place. The Deputy would be criticising the State if the State put somebody into child accommodation because they had said they were 17 in circumstances where it transpired that they were 19 or 20. All I ask colleagues to do is appreciate how difficult this can be for Tusla or, indeed, the determining authority, as it will be after 12 June, or the IPO now.”
“Additionally, the best interests of the child are specifically stated to be a primary consideration in Chapter 2 or Part 3 of the Bill and in other Parts of the Bill. Considering this, the provisions already in this Bill provide a solid basis on which to ensure that minors are treated appropriately in the international protection process. Provision is already made throughout the Bill for safeguards and protections for minors in the processing of international protection applications, with obligations and responsibilities being placed on the determining authority to ensure these. Deputy Carthy has mentioned the problem that can arise if a child ends up in accommodation with an adult. It is a really difficult and complicated area.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling his amendment to Seanad amendment No. 44. Section 50(a) of the Bill as passed by the Dáil provides for a regulation-making power that specifies the standards to be applied to representative organisations, provisional representative persons and representative persons. I do not believe this particular amendment is necessary. Moreover, section 50(b) provides that I, as Minister, shall make provision for the training of staff of representative organisations, provisional representative persons and representative persons. This will ensure that training is kept up-to-date and relevant and that representatives are fully aware of the applicable child safeguarding standards.”
“If we do not have a system that allows us to detain people who are to be deported, we can never have deportation flights. I just have to be realistic about it. We could never have these flights because people are obviously not going to turn up and ask "What time is the flight leaving at?" The realistic situation is that in order to ensure that people can be subject to enforced deportations, you have to detain them in advance. It is not the preferred way of doing it. The numbers in terms of voluntary returns are increasing quite significantly, but we would have a meaningless system if we could not have enforced deportations. In order to have enforced deportations, regrettably, we do need to have detention.”
“However, it is overwhelmingly the case that the majority of people coming in and claiming international protection are doing so having come over the Border. The reason I can say that confidently is because if people were coming in through the airports, they would apply at there, as they are obliged to, and if they were coming through the ports, they would have to apply there. Deputy Carthy offered one example whereby people who are in Ireland already on visas could subsequently apply for international protection. I would have thought that would be a small cohort. That may reduce the numbers we can say are coming from Northern Ireland. I will look at it. Ultimately, there is no point in setting up a very complicated IT system for the purpose of telling us something that we know already.”
“The fourth requirement relates to the number whose route of entry cannot not be established. As I said to Deputy Carthy, the collection of the type of data he is seeking to capture would require inquiry within the Department because it is possible that not all of this information is currently systematically captured by its IT systems in the manner specified in the amendment. I will look at it, but I cannot accept the amendment. I can inform the Deputy that the IPO publishes monthly statistics on applications. There is a huge amount of information contained within those statistics. However, the Deputy is correct that in terms of that primary information, it is guiding in terms of the policy that we have.”
“You can find out about individuals who have presented at the IPO office and there is sometimes information about people who present at ports or airports. We have that information and I think it is available. The second requirement relates to the number presenting inland. By that, I think the Deputy means the number presenting at the IPO. I assume that is what the term "presenting inland" relates to. Information in this regard is provided already; the statistics that come out show the numbers who apply at the IPO and at the airports and the ports. The third requirement relates to the number reporting entry via the common travel area. In effect, this applies to people who say they have come here from the UK. One would have to ask individuals about that to get that information and collate it.”
“It does generally mean that at present. I have indicated this to the Deputy before - or I do not know if it was him - but he knows this puts pressure on prisons. I have looked before but I am going to have to start trying to identify a secure location where detention takes place but which is exclusively for immigration. That may be something at which I have to look. I am not giving a commitment to it but at present detention under the migration laws is detention within our prisons. What Deputy Carthy wants to achieve in terms of his amendment is for me to publish annual statistical information on the routes of entry. There are four requirements in his amendment. The first relates to the number of applicants presenting at a port or airport. That information is available.”
“158 provides for the insertion of a reference to the new Part 5 of the Bill into section 126, which deals with restrictions and freedom of movement during the asylum border procedure.”
“114 provides that for the purposes of the grounds of detention under amendment No. 108, any delays in administrative procedures that cannot be attributed to the applicant should not justify a continuation of detention. Amendment No. 115 seeks to ensure that applicants who have been detained under this Part are provided with safe and secure conditions of detention. This includes the need to separate detained applicants from ordinary prisoners and other third country nationals who have not lodged an application for international protection. Provisions also made to allow detained applicants to contact with family members, legal representatives and persons representing relevant NGOs, and for access to open-air space. Finally, amendment No.”
“To ensure that persons with special reception needs are treated with care and consideration during the international protection process, amendment No. 112 provides that such applicants are not placed in detention where this might have serious negative impacts on the physical and mental health. Where applicants assessed as having special reception needs are placed in detention, the health of the applicant will be of primary importance, and robust supports and protections will be provided for them. In the interests of protecting minors during the international protection process, amendment No. 113 provides for the Child and Family Agency to be notified where an applicant is detained under amendment No. 108, and the minor is in the custody of the detained applicant. Amendment No.”
“I reiterate that this Bill does not permit the routine detention of minors, as has been suggested by some, and this will not become a feature of our international protection system. To ensure the safety of applicants and those responsible for helping them during the international protection process, amendment No. 110 places an obligation on the applicant to ensure that he or she does not endanger his or her safety, or the safety of others, or obstruct or hinder an immigration officer or a member of the Garda for performing their duties under this part of the Bill. Where an applicant is detained under amendment No. 109, amendment No. 111 provides for the rights of the applicant and ensures they are able to avail of effective legal protections under this Bill, including access to legal assistance and legal representation.”
“109 provides for a very limited set of circumstances in which a minor may be detained. These are for the purposes of determining or verifying the identity or nationality of the minor where less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively and where detention has been assessed as being in the child's best interests. All of these requirements must be met before a minor can be detained. Minors may only be detained for the shortest possible period and in a place which is appropriate to their needs. Any individual detained under this amendment will be able to seek free legal assistance and legal representation, consult a legal representative and challenge the detention order.”
“108 provides for the arrest and detention of applicants, with the exception of minors, for as short a time as possible, where it is determined that other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied and where detention is deemed to be necessary. This amendment will provide legal protections for applicants by ensuring they are informed of the reason for their arrest and detention and that they are entitled to seek free legal assistance and legal representation, consult a legal representative and challenge the detention. The grounds for the detention of an applicant will continue to be monitored, and where it is assessed that these grounds no longer apply, be brought before a judge of the District Court who will order the release of the person. Amendment No.”
“In order to take the changing circumstances of an applicant's situation into account, amendment No. 106 provides that an immigration officer or member of the Garda may vary a requirement under amendment No. 103 where the circumstances relating to the making of the requirement change, and in such other particular circumstances as I may prescribe. To ensure that robust legal remedies are in place for applicants, amendment No. 107 provides that an applicant may avail of an appeals procedure to the District Court in relation to a requirement made under amendment No. 103 while the requirement is in force. Amendment No.”
“104 provides that in exceptional circumstances an immigration officer or a member of An Garda Síochána may make a requirement under amendment No. 103 for a minor who is an applicant. This may occur where the parent or primary care giver of an accompanied minor is the subject of a requirement under amendment No. 103 where such a requirement safeguards the minor or where it has been established that making the requirement of the minor is assessed to be in his or her best interests. Amendment No. 105 outlines that requirements made under amendment No. 103 must be based on an individual assessment to ensure applicants are kept fully informed of any requirements being placed on them. This amendment specifies that this information will be notified to the applicant in writing and will inform him or her of the reasons for this decision.”
“These grounds include to determine or verify the identity or nationality of the applicant, to ensure transfer procedures are carried out in accordance with the asylum and migration management regulation and to determine the elements in which the application for international protection is based, which could not be obtained in the absence of a detention, in particular where there is a risk of absconding. Where the grounds under amendment No. 103 apply, an immigration officer or a member of the Garda may apply alternatives to detention following an individual assessment of the applicant. Such requirements can include an obligation to reside at, or attend a specified place, or to report to an immigration officer or member of the Garda at a specified time or at reasonable specified intervals. Amendment No.”
“It is also possible for material to be sought by way of parliamentary question. Amendment No. 101 transposes Article 10.1 of the reception conditions directive and provides the grounds for the prohibition of detention, which includes the fact that an individual is an applicant, or on the basis that he or she is an applicant of a particular nationality. This amendment specifies that detention under Chapter 3 of Part 5 will not be punitive in nature. Amendment No. 102 transposes Article 10.4 of the reception conditions directive, which provides the grounds for the detention of an applicant.”
“The purpose of this amendment appears to be to require the Minister to lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas, setting out particular relevant statistical information relating to applicants for international protection where the question of the risk of absconding is assessed under the new section. The collection of the type of data the amendment seeks to capture would require scoping by my Department as it is possible not all of this information is currently systemically captured by its IT systems in the manner specified in the amendment. While I cannot accept the amendment, I can inform Deputy Carthy that the International Protection Office publishes monthly statistics on applications for international protection that are publicly available on its website.”
“59 and 62 are technical drafting amendments to correct cross-references and improve the clarity of the text. The proposed new Part 5 of the Bill gives effect to the provisions of the reception conditions directive relating to restrictions of freedom of movement, detention and alternatives to detention. Amendment No. 90 describes the categories of applicants to whom the new Part 5 will apply. Amendment No. 91 lists the specific grounds under which an applicant may be considered at risk of absconding. These include the presentation of false or misleading information and failing to co-operate with competent authorities or procedural requirements. The procedural requirements an applicant must adhere to are also listed in this amendment. Regarding Deputy Carthy's amendment to amendment No. 91, I do not propose to accept it.”
“Amendment No. 16 is a technical amendment that repeals section 20 of the International Protection Act 2015 which provides for the detention of applicants in certain limited circumstances. Following the commencement of this Bill, any applicants under that Act who are to be detained will be subject to the detention provisions of this Bill in accordance with the reception conditions directive. Therefore, it is necessary to repeal section 20 of the International Protection Act 2015. Amendment No. 17 seeks to ensure an applicant is fully informed of their obligations to co-operate with a member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer for the purposes of section 23 of the Bill and the consequences for failing to do so. Amendment Nos.”
“42 facilitates the work of representatives by providing them with access to the unaccompanied minors file. Amendment No. 43 is related to amendment No. 42 and facilitates the work of representatives by ensuring they are provided with the decisions and determinations sent to unaccompanied minors. Amendment No. 44 replaces section 47 with a clarified text that more effectively describes the functions of provisional representatives and representatives. The text now emphasises the central function of the representative in safeguarding the best interest and well-being of the unaccompanied minors as well as setting out the case load, independence and training requirements to be applied.”
“242, which provides for the amendment of the Child Care Act 1991 to insert a provision for a presumption of minority. Therefore, the current section 42(5) is no longer necessary. Amendments Nos. 32, 34 and 36 are technical amendments related to the improved layout of the chapter. The text proposed to be deleted is now provided for more coherently as a part of the revised section 47 set out in amendment No. 44. Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 are technical drafting amendments to improve the clarity of the text. Amendment No. 37 recognises section 44 to clarify the procedure for representative organisations to appoint provisional representatives and representatives. Amendments Nos. 38 to 41, inclusive, is a technical amendment which adds clarity to section 44. Amendment No.”
“Amendment No. 5 defines the phrase "international protection guardian" for the purposes of section 2. Later proposed amendments to the Children First Act 2015 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 will rely on this definition. Amendments No. 13 and 14 are technical amendments that provide for updated cross-references within the Bill. Amendment No. 29 provides for the designation of the competent authority in respect of representatives for unaccompanied minors. Amendment No. 30 is an amendment that clarifies the notification procedure when it comes to the attention of a relevant body that an applicant may be an unaccompanied minor. Amendment No. 31 is a technical amendment. The provision for presumption of minority for the purposes of the Child Care Act 1991 is no longer necessary due to amendment No.”
“It is important that we have a mechanism to deal with individuals who have claimed asylum and have been adjudicated not to be entitled to it. That is a problem no matter what we do. For it to work efficiently - and it does not at present - there must be a returns process as provided for under the Dublin III regulation. Every European country says that Dublin III does not work. That is why work is ongoing in the Commission to put in place an effective returns regulation.”
“I will not name them here again. In assessing those applications, work is done to determine whether they are from people who previously had visas granted to them by the UK. Many of them do not appear to be people who were granted visas because we know the nationalities. There is one exception. There is one country, where the UK hands out a lot of visas to people from those countries for study and that may have an impact. They may be coming here as a result, but for the other main countries it is not usual for the UK to give out large numbers of visas in respect of them. On what Deputy Gannon said about returns, the point he emphasised emphasises to me the need for Ireland to be part of a returns regulation that at present is the subject of a proposal by the Commission.”
“I thought we agreed on it. Is he now saying that is not correct, that it is not the case that the majority of people come through the common travel area? We strongly believe it is. We do not have the data he is talking about collating. I will talk to senior officials in the Department about it but I suspect it will be a huge amount of effort to collate information which ultimately will not have a huge impact on public policy because it will not undermine the fact that the significant majority of people - probably more than 85% to 90% - come through the UK. This leads me on to Deputy Gannon's question. If he looks at the nationalities of the people coming to Ireland - each week I publish details of the numbers of people coming in - they are coming predominantly from four or five countries which are consistently near the top.”
“I thought one thing Deputy Carthy and I agreed on was that the overwhelming majority of people who claim asylum in the Republic come through the common travel area. I thought we agreed on that. Yes, we do not have the exact specifics on it-----”