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 31 of 84.
“I will start by answering Senator Keogan's question as to what happens if somebody does not agree to provide their biometric data. That is an offence and they can be brought before the District Court. Ultimately, it will probably be implicitly recognised as a withdrawal of their application. It is very reasonable on the part of the State to tell somebody who has come in to claim asylum that we want to take their fingerprints and photograph and that we want to know their identity. That is a perfectly reasonable request.”
“A person who is taking the biometric data of a minor shall, before the taking of the biometric data, explain the procedure for the taking of the data to the minor, take the biometric data in a child-friendly and child-sensitive manner, and, at the time of taking the biometric data, have completed appropriate training in relation to the taking of biometric data from minors. There are procedures clearly set out as to the circumstances when somebody over the age of six and under the age of 18 can have biometric data taken from them and how it should be performed. In terms of the data and the management of that data, that is set out in great detail in section 17 of the Bill in terms of the preservation and maintenance of the data.”
“It is a reasonable request from the State to try to identify who is coming into the country. The alternative to it is that we just accept the identity that a person is giving and that is not a procedure that is going to result in a coherent asylum process. Senator Higgins also raised the issue about the taking of biometric data from children. If Members look at section 15 (7) , it says that biometric data from a minor can only be taken in the presence of an adult family member of the minor or, where the minor is an unaccompanied minor, a provisional representative or a representative person, or an employee of, or a person appointed by, the Child and Family Agency, and data will not be taken from a child under six years of age.”
“Many of us use it for the purpose of getting on to our phones or for other provisions. It is an area where it is beneficial for the purpose of identification. We are talking about a different issue here from where people are going to be arrested or investigated because facial recognition technology has identified them as being involved in a criminal act or being at a previous location. This is different. There is a requirement to give the data, and the data is of benefit and of use to the State in identifying the person. In terms of the specific amendment, the biometric data taken shall not be used as grounds for detention. However, as Members are aware, if somebody does not agree to give their biometric data and refuses to go to a screening centre, they can be detained for the purpose of making sure that is complied with.”
“It is completely relevant to Ireland in determining whether or not a person is entitled to asylum to know whether or not that person previously claimed asylum in another member state or, if they did not, whether there is data in that member state in respect of them. If their fingerprints indicate that a person who is applying for asylum in Ireland is the same person who applied in Austria previously and gave a different name, that is extremely important. I note and hear the Senator's concern in respect of facial imaging data, but, in many respects, if we were having this discussion many years ago about fingerprints or DNA there would be concern about the accuracy of those two systems of identification. Facial imaging data is improving and increasing in terms of its quality and its ability to correctly identify people.”
“It is a reasonable requirement on the part of the State that, if somebody is coming in claiming international protection, we take biometric data via fingerprinting as well as facial image technology - photographs - so that we have an image of their face. The reason this is being done is so that it can be put into Eurodac. The reason this legislation is going through and is to be operationalised by 12 June is because Ireland and other European countries have agreed that it is preferable and advantageous to be able to harmonise their resources and rules when it comes to the assessment of asylum applications.”
“I thank Senators Higgins and Ruane for their amendment. I will start with the specific wording of it. It states, "Facial image data maintained as part of a record of biometric data taken under this Chapter shall not be used as grounds for detention." There is no basis upon which the maintenance of data would be used as a grounds for detention. I will set out the procedure under the Bill. Sections 14 and 15 deal with Eurodac. When somebody comes to Ireland and claims international protection, we tell them that they have to go to a screening centre and, in advance of that, we require to take from them biometric data. This means their fingerprints and facial image data.”
“These issues have been taken on board. Section 116 expressly sets out that “The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the carrying out of procedures in respect of a minor under this Part.” There are also other references to the best interests of the child being a primary consideration in the Bill.”
“shall be carried out by a person of the same sex as the applicant and in full respect for the human dignity of the applicant and the applicant’s physical and psychological integrity. It also sets out that reasons must be given. There is a very detailed provision in section 32 as to how searches may be performed.”
“The measures under the directives and regulations do not require the independence of officers who will be performing the functions of the Minister. As a result, I cannot accept the amendment. I thank Senators Higgins and Ruane for bringing forward the amendment that was discussed earlier, and which I have accepted. There was a divergence between two of the systems. However, I do not think the same applies in respect of searches of applicants. If Senator Higgins looks at section 32, she will see that very detailed provisions are set out in terms of how these searches are to be conducted and in what circumstances they may be permissible. Subsection (7) states: A search of the applicant’s person ...”
“I thank Senator Cosgrove for tabling the amendment and I thank those of her colleagues who co-signed it. Senator Cosgrove is correct in identifying that under the new scheme, international protection officers will not be independent in the performance of their functions. That is correct. There is a change in this legislation, and it is a change that is apparent when we look at the EU directives. The entity that is going to be determining applications at first instance is the Minister. I am the determining authority, and I will be responsible for issuing first-instance decisions. It is different from the provision that operated under section 74 of the 2015 Act. However, just because it is me does not mean that applications will not be considered on their merits and in an independent process.”
“Amendment No. 20 is a technical amendment to repeal section 20 of the 2015 Act on the detention of applicants. Following the commencement of this Bill, any applicants being detained under that Act will be detained under Part 5 of this Act. It is therefore necessary to repeal section 20 of the 2015 Act. Amendment No. 273 is a consequential transitional provision to deal with cases where an applicant is detained under section 20 of the 2015 Act immediately before the commencement of this Bill. It ensures that the detention of such persons is reviewed by a court as soon as practicable.”
“However, if you believe in asylum and the right to it, you must believe in an asylum process because if we just say everyone who says they are entitled to asylum gets it, that defeats the whole purpose of it, and why then should we not be honest and have open borders when it comes to where people want to go? We do not have open borders where people can go wherever they want to go. We have rules, and if we want to ensure we can protect asylum, we need to ensure the asylum process itself is a fair but firm process.”
“I am sure if the European court went off on a tangent that was very anti the rights of individuals and its interpretation was very anti the protections we thought existed under the provisions of the convention, we would want to do something to try to put the court back on a pathway by saying what member states meant by those articles. I welcome the debate. I cannot accept the amendment. It is unnecessary. On Senator Higgins’s points, she seems to think this is part of a co-ordinated campaign to make life unpleasant for asylum applicants. It is not. It is an extremely difficult time and a difficult challenge for governments in Europe to deal with the asylum process, especially because of the chaos happening in the world.”
“That is why we should recognise and empathise with the position of the current British Government in respect of what it is seeking to do. That is just some of the overview in respect of the issues at the Council of Europe. It is worthwhile having the debate here. There will be a political declaration in due course. It will probably be agreed in early May. One of the things we repeatedly talk about is democracy and the rule of law. Democracy and the rule of law mean decisions are made by elected people and also that courts ensure that the rights of individuals, be they convention, charter or Irish constitutional rights, are protected. However, it has to be the case that some direction can be given to a court in Europe by way of a political declaration.”
“Those are the type of cases which have created concern among member states in respect of how the court is interpreting Article 3 of the convention, and in particular the definition of inhumane and degrading treatment. All of the states in the Council of Europe, from my assessment of them in December, are committed and want to remain within the European convention. Ireland absolutely is insistent upon complying with our obligations under the convention and ensuring that we remain part of it. It is extremely important to us that the UK similarly stays part of the European convention. We would want to be blind to not be aware of the risks of the UK not being part of the convention due to the efforts of a future British Government.”
“The European court said that would be inhumane and degrading treatment because he would not get the same quality of healthcare treatment in Georgia as he was getting in Belgium, and he was a person who was ill. That is just one example of the type of relevant cases. Another was a case of MSS v. Belgium and Greece, where the Belgians again wanted to remove a person who was in Belgium and had had their asylum application removed, and they wanted to send them back under the Dublin III regulation to Greece. A challenge was brought, saying the conditions in Greece for asylum applicants would be overcrowded and clearly not as good as was the case in Belgium. There also, the European court intervened on the side of the applicant. Other similar cases include Tarakhel v. Switzerland.”
“There was the Interlaken declaration in 2010 for reform of the backlog in the court. There is nothing unusual or unorthodox about member states deciding they want to come forward with a political declaration in order for it to be used as a travaux préparatoires for the court in interpreting provisions within it. The reason there were specific issues in terms of removal of persons from one country to another was because of a number of decisions of the European court in the area of asylum and deportation of persons. As I mentioned earlier, one of them was the case of Paposhvili v. Belgium, where the Belgian authorities wanted to remove a person who had been convicted of quite serious criminal offences back to the country he came from, which was Georgia.”
“The reason many member states sought to ensure that we have a political declaration of respective issues is because of how the court was interpreting Article 3 in the context of many issues associated with immigration, and one was the instrumentalisation of borders, which is something that has happened on the eastern part of the Council of Europe, particularly at the Polish border with Belarus. There are issues of real legitimate concern for member states as to how the court is interpreting Article 3. Of course, it is up to member states to decide if they want to put in a political declaration and a political declaration will, of course, be taken account of by the European Court when it comes to interpreting the different articles. There have been declarations before.”
“I welcome the fact that Senator Stephenson says there is nothing wrong with the political declaration. The purpose of what the 27 member states signed up to on 10 December last was to ensure that there was a political declaration. That was sought because there was concern on the part of member states about how the court was interpreting, in particular, Article 3, and the provision dealing with inhumane and degrading treatment. I gave the example earlier of the hooded men and how that was an example of whether it is torture. The court said it was not torture but it was inhumane and degrading treatment.”
“It is very important for the state of democracy that we emphasise and recognise that elected people make the laws and the courts apply those laws. It is not the function of courts to make laws because there is no democratic mandate behind the courts making laws. I am very proud of the fact that the Irish courts in the 1960s and 1970s did enumerate what was within the Irish Constitution and set out the personal rights enjoyed by citizens of Ireland as a result of what they viewed as being the enumeration of unenumerated rights in our Constitution. That was a very important part of the judicial process. They were not making law; they were giving voice to personal rights that were contained within the Constitution but had not been enumerated at that stage.”
“However, it must also be the case that we recognise the role played by courts. Nobody elected persons to be on courts. Courts are not representative of individuals within societies or of the democratic wishes of persons. They are there to apply the law. They are a very important part of our constitutional architecture and governance. Elected representatives make laws and the courts ensure those laws are applied. For instance, for many years in Ireland, when challenges were made to our restrictive abortion laws, the courts said they could not change them because of what was in the Constitution, namely, the eighth amendment. We got around that by removing the eighth amendment to the Constitution, and obviously the courts were then able to apply different laws and rules.”
“When legislation is being drafted, the charter, Bunreacht na hÉireann and indeed, the ECHR are all fundamental requirements that must be complied with when legislation has been proposed or any orders are being made. For that reason, I will not be supporting the amendment. It is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. The Senator did, however, bring the debate on to a more interesting discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of the European Court of Human Rights, the decision made in Strasbourg by 27 member states of the Council of Europe on 10 December to seek the process to get a political declaration, and other issues which were raised subsequently by other Senators. As I said to Senator Stephenson earlier on, Ireland’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights is absolute. That remains the case.”
“I could list every piece of legislation which is relevant to the provisions within this Act and say that it must also comply with the Data Protection Act and all criminal justice legislation. It is unnecessary. It is implicit in everything that is done in legislation, by second statutory instrument or executive order that I must comply with the law. That applies to every Minister and to every office holder. It is unnecessary to put into legislation that the Minister shall comply with the law. It has to be implicitly recognised that I must and am obliged to comply with the law. The provisions contained within the European Convention on Human Rights are extremely important and they influence what is contained within this legislation, and indeed all legislation.”
“Everything I do as Minister for justice and every order or regulation I make, whether under this legislation if and when it is enacted or any other legislation, must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Not only that, it must comply with the charter set up from 2004 and indeed, more importantly, Bunreacht na hÉireann. I am required to act lawfully in everything I do, and that applies to every other Minister as well. The proposed amendment is unnecessary and could also be misleading because it simply states that there should be a requirement that whatever I do or whatever order I make shall comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. It would need to include that it must comply with the Constitution of Ireland and the charter of fundamental rights.”
“I thank Senator Stephenson for her amendment and all Senators for their contributions. It has been a very interesting debate and I am going to try to respond to it as much as I can. I will start by looking at the specific amendment. The debate we had went beyond the amendment, but I want to deal with the amendment at the outset. What Senator Stephenson is proposing is that a provision be introduced into section 3 - which is a section that governs orders and regulations I make under the Act – and that provision will provide that any order or regulation made under this Act shall comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“Relevant bodies will be permitted to enter data sharing agreements subject to safeguards corresponding to those in the Data Sharing and Governance Act 2019. The sharing of personal data relating to applicants for international protection and beneficiaries of temporary protection is governed by a number of existing enactments. It is clearly stated this new section is not intended to affect the operation of other enactments that permit or require data collection or data sharing. Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 236 are consequential on amendment No. 271.”
“Where information is shared under the new section, the relevant body with which it is shared may only use the information for the purpose of the performance by it of its functions and only to the extent necessary and proportionate for that purpose. The proposed new section will enable the Minister for justice to make regulations on information sharing for the purposes of this Bill. Relevant principles and policies to govern the exercise of the regulation-making power are also included. The Minister will be required to have regard to the need to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects and to specify suitable and specific measures to safeguard these fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in the sharing of personal data.”
“The main amendment in this grouping is amendment No. 271, which proposes the insertion of a new section 274 to provide for the sharing of information by relevant bodies. The purpose of the new section is to make clear provision for the sharing of information, including personal data, by public bodies for the purpose of carrying out functions under the Bill. Provision is made for necessary safeguards. Information may be shared under the new section only to the extent that it is necessary and proportionate and subject to suitable and specific measures being taken to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in processing the personal data.”
“Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 73 and indeed 194 define the phrase "international protection guardian" for the purposes of section 2 and amend the Bill to reflect the phrasing inserted into the national vetting bureau Act and the Children First Act.”
“In fairness to the Senator, it is an accurate definition and description of the common travel area but since the term does not exist in the Bill at present, it does not make sense to include it. Obviously if Senator McDowell's subsequent amendments were accepted there would be a purpose to including it, but I regret to announce I will not be supporting those other amendments and so I have to oppose this amendment.”
“With regard to the pressures on the Government when it comes to the provision of suitable accommodation, I hope Senators appreciate it is a significant burden but that the Government is doing as good a job as it can to ensure accommodation is provided. I fully appreciate the Senators' view that amendments are coming in very late and that their time to debate the legislation is restricted. However, all I ask them to note is that it is not a trend on my part to guillotine legislation. The reason it is being proposed here is the time pressure to ensure the Bill is enacted. Also, the size of, and level of detail in, the Bill meant we could not just arrive, at the beginning, with a finished product with everything in it.”
“The debate at that time was about whether we could improve the standard of accommodation for them and abolish direct provision. I, along with the justice committee of which I was a member, visited many direct provision centres in the Dáil term that ran from 2016 to 2020. The focus then was on improving conditions. After Covid, from 2022 onwards, the numbers increased very significantly: 13,500 in 2022, 13,500 in 2023, 18,500 in 2024, and down to 13,000 last year. The significant number arriving put pressure on the ability to remove direct provision. Abolishing it cannot be achieved at this stage.”
“In fact, it would be irresponsible of the State if age assessments were not conducted. Senator Flynn referred to direct provision as though it were a prison. It is not. We provide accommodation to people who come to Ireland seeking international protection. We do it in a much more professional and humane way than other EU countries of which I have experience in this regard. The reason the discussion is no longer about the abolition of direct provision, as some Senators raised and which reflects a debate we were having in 2019 or so, is because the numbers arriving into Ireland have increased so significantly. When having this debate in 2018 and 2019, we were talking about perhaps 4,000 to 5,000 people coming to Ireland each year claiming international protection.”
“The reason age assessment, no matter how it is conducted, is important is that if a person comes to Ireland and says they are 17 years of age, there is an obligation on the State, if their statement is true, to ensure the person is treated as a child, with all the benefits and protections that come with that under Irish legislation. The reason age assessments are necessary is that it would be a serious issue for child protection if an adult, say one of 20 years of age, were put into a residence reserved exclusively for minors. It is a very difficult position for the State when somebody says they are 17 years of age and there is a dispute about it or doubt over it. The presumption of minority applies but it is perfectly legitimate to have age assessments conducted.”
“The issue of unaccompanied minors, which I believe was raised by Senator Higgins, is one of genuine complexity. The Senator asked why we should have age assessments.”
“The report will be annual and deal with many of the issues of concern set out by Senators here. Some Senators have said that this Bill is shameful because of the provisions it contains in respect of children. I totally disagree. I ask people to examine the provisions contained within the legislation in respect of children, be they guarantees for minors, set out in section 31, the provisions dealing with the appointment of representatives of unaccompanied minors, set out in Chapter 2 of Part 3, or the provision on the notification to Tusla where a minor is in the custody of a detained person, provided for in section 112. There are provisions throughout this legislation that seek to protect the unique position of minors who come to Ireland seeking international protection.”
“I have no difficulty doing this, and I thank the Senator for bringing the matter to my attention. It may be breached significantly. I was not aware of it when I was a Member of the Oireachtas and before I became a member of the Government. It is obviously a benefit to the Houses of the Oireachtas that this Standing Order exists. I have no doubt that this House and the other should seek to invoke the powers that reside within the Standing Orders by seeking the reports. I will have no difficulty in confirming that I have instructed my officials to prepare a report in accordance with Standing Order 179. There was a discussion about the rights of children. In respect of the rights of children and all applicants under the legislation, and as I mentioned in respect of the previous amendment, there will be a chief inspector's report as well.”
“I want to look at the substance of the amendments before us, which seek to ensure there is a report produced. I thank those who tabled the amendments. I also thank Senator McDowell for educating me on Standing Order 179. I had not been aware of this Standing Order prior to him informing me about it last week on Committee Stage. Since then, I have instructed my officials that I want this Standing Order complied with. This means that I want there to be a report completed for this House. If the Bill is enacted sometime in April or May, it will be within a year of that, namely in the first quarter of next year. I have instructed my officials in this regard, and I want to see a report produced to the Seanad as required under Standing Order 179. Similarly, I will do so in respect of the Dáil. It will be the same report.”
“Being honest with Senators, as I always am, this puts pressure on me, the Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to try to ensure we get the Bill in as good a shape as possible to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is why, in terms of pressures, when the Bill was presented to the Dáil, I had to say that further amendments would be introduced in the Seanad on important issues such as legal counselling. We had a very good debate here last week on the issue of legal counselling and what it constitutes. There are debates here today on the rights of the child, and reference has been made to the letter from the Ombudsman for Children. We are having a debate here and we have another three hours when I will be here and want to debate the issues once the amendments come to the floor.”
“I agree that the Committee Stage debates here and in the Dáil were not as detailed or as extensive as I would have liked. I am more than happy and would like to discuss issues that I did not get to discuss here or in the Dáil, including family reunification - in the context of which there is broad discretion available to Ireland regarding the rules we are introducing - and those relating to other provisions. It has to be said that I cannot dictate the speed at which we move through amendments in this House or the Lower House. I do not want Senators to think I am trying to avoid scrutiny. I am happy for scrutiny to take place. There is a requirement that the legislation be commenced and up and running by 12 June and be operational by then.”
“Very detailed pre-legislative scrutiny was carried out in respect of the general scheme by the Oireachtas justice committee, many of the members of which are here. During that process, the Bill was being drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. As everyone here can appreciate, it is an extraordinary body of work to produce a piece of legislation of this detail, length and complexity. I do not think anyone would argue against the fact that it takes a considerable period to do it. I wanted to try to ensure that the legislation would come before the Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible. It was only feasible for this to happen at the beginning of this year. It is important to remind Senators again that we did have pre-legislative scrutiny. When the Bill went to the Dáil, we had three days of Second Stage debate.”
“The reason for that is because of the vast volume of provisions it contains. It is an enormous piece of legislation; we can all agree on that. In effect, what it seeks to do is transpose into Irish law the six or seven directives and regulations we have made in agreement with other members of the European Union that will commence on 12 June. However, it also contains our own provisions that we want to include in order to ensure that we reform asylum law in Ireland for the better. We can all agree that the laws which exist in Ireland in respect of asylum need to be improved. Senators may not believe that this is the mechanism to use to improve them, but we can all agree that they have to be improved. I published the general scheme of the International Protection Bill last April.”
“I get ideas from listening to people in this House. I accept ideas and adopt them when I believe they are good. The process we have in place shows itself to work effectively. Whether it is the defamation Bill, which was completed, and I was here for many days on Committee and Report Stages, or whether it is other legislation that has gone to Committee Stage at the justice committee, I recognise the importance of fully scrutinising legislation. That is why in the Bills that have become law to date, I have gone through the process very methodically. In the context of those which have not yet become law and on which the debate has not been guillotined, I have done the same in order to ensure that I hear a full and considered debate. The International Protection Bill is a different category of legislation.”
“I thank the Senators who tabled the amendments and all those who made contributions. I take my responsibility as Minister before both Houses extremely seriously. The way legislation is made in Ireland is that overwhelmingly it is advanced by Ministers who come before the Houses and listen to debates, and it is this House and the Dáil who make the laws. I have a significant responsibility in respect of it since I have the benefit of a Department and a Government majority behind me. Notwithstanding these advantages, I take my responsibilities extremely seriously. Senators are aware that I have been here quite frequently in respect of legislation. I like to debate legislation. I like to spend time in this House in particular and in the Dáil. The latter is an important part of the legislative process.”
“All I would say without repeating myself is that once the legislation is commenced, I have no doubt that Senators at the committee or when I am here in this Chamber will be raising issues concerning the operation of the legislation with me. Certainly, I will be questioned about it before the Oireachtas justice committee. I will be questioned, no doubt, in respect of the reports that are going to be produced by the chief inspector on an annual basis, and the media will be very vigorously questioning me as well. That is the appropriate way to deal with it, through those statutory mechanisms and the standard mechanisms available in a free society such as Ireland, as opposed to just putting in the provision that I will produce a report within 12 months. I thank the Senators for their amendment.”
“I thank the Senator for his contribution. It is important to point out that receiving appropriate legal counselling is a statutory requirement under the legislation. I have to provide that. I have to make sure that international protection applicants "are being treated humanely in detention in line with national law and the European Convention on Human Rights." The obligations that are set out in terms of the reception conditions and legal counselling are very detailed within the Bill. It sets out very considerable obligations on me and on the State in terms of providing accommodation to individuals who come seeking international protection and of providing legal counselling for the first stage of their applications. Obviously, on the second and appeal stages, I have to provide legal representation, which is even more.”
“There was a general coming together of countries and Ireland, of its own accord, decided that we would sign up to that letter. I believe it was the correct thing to do when we consider how the definition of Article 3 has in more recent times been interpreted by the European court. For those reasons, I do not think it is necessary to accept the amendment from the Senators.”
“That was one of the reasons that countries in Strasbourg, including Ireland, decided to seek a political declaration in respect of the matter. The final thing I wanted to identify and respond to Senator Stephenson on was that there was a reference to the UK wanting to get out of the ECHR. My experience from my engagement with the UK Government is that it is desperately keen to stay within the European convention for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the importance the convention has to ensuring that the terms of the Good Friday Agreement continue to operate effectively. That was the clear communication from Deputy Prime Minister Lammy, whom I met out in Strasbourg at the time on 9 and 10 December. It was a very significant development that the UK asked Ireland to do so. Other countries asked other countries to do so as well.”
“I certainly think the political elected representatives of the Council of Europe are entitled to put forward a political declaration. As the court is a living court, it takes into account political declarations when it comes to its interpretation of articles within the convention. Work has been ongoing in respect of that and there will be general agreement on a political declaration later this year. It is important to note that even though the number of cases may be small, the impact of judicial authorities and jurisprudence is not in respect of the number of them but in respect of the authority that is derived from them. The cases that I have identified, and other cases that I cannot recall the names of at present, have very much expanded the definition of Article 3 of the European convention.”