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 33 of 84.
“Prior consultation is required with me as the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, and where relevant the line Minister responsible for the body, before a decision may be taken not to accede to a request in respect of a particular question. The head of the body is required to make the decision as soon as is practicable. This is important to ensure that momentum is maintained and the inquiry is not subject to any delay. The section also ensures transparency around decision-making by requiring the reasons grounding any refusal to be notified to the chairperson. Section 6 is similar to section 5 but concerns requests for assistance from former ministerial officeholders, that is, those who have held the office of Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister or Minister of State.”
“The head may accede to a request in full or in part but must refuse a request where to do otherwise would be likely to prejudice the sovereignty and security of the State and other essential interests of the State, would be likely to prejudice a criminal investigation of criminal proceedings in the State or would otherwise being inconsistent with the functions, whether statutory or otherwise, of the designated State body. I emphasise that the assessment requires an individual consideration of each question and the potential evidence concerned. No classes of records are automatically excluded from being put into evidence using this mechanism. I also emphasise that the decision by the head of the body is subject to an important check.”
“This is a new feature compared with the 2019 Act and recognises that bodies other than An Garda Síochána hold records that are potentially relevant to the inquiry. Section 5 deals with how the chairman may request assistance from a State body, be that An Garda Síochána or another designated State body, and the steps to be taken by the head of the State body on receipt of such a request. The head of the State body could be the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces or the Secretary General of a Department. An important development on the 2019 Act is that a request may, in addition to specifying the questions the chairman is requesting be asked, specify current and past officeholders, be they members of An Garda Síochána or officials, from whom the inquiry wishes to hear.”
“As referred to earlier, it is premised on the taking of evidence in this jurisdiction before the High Court. This mirrors the bespoke mechanism first developed in 2019 and safeguards both the essential interests of the State, including its sovereignty, and the rights of Irish State witnesses while seeking to maximise evidential opportunities for the inquiry. As I have said, the bespoke mechanism is triggered by a request from the chairman of the inquiry for assistance. Such a request may be made to An Garda Síochána. However, section 4 allows the Minister to designate other bodies at the request of the chairman. Those other bodies include Departments of State and the Defence Forces.”
“The mechanism it provides will be available to the chairman of the inquiry over the lifetime of the inquiry and will allow for assistance to be sought as matters arise in the course of its work. This single focus recognises the significance of the bombing and also the need for speedy enactment. As the House will be aware, I intend to bring forward separate legislative proposals before the summer to progress implementation of the Government's commitments in the joint framework on addressing the legacy of the Troubles that was agreed with the United Kingdom Government last September. Part 2 of the Bill contains the substantive provisions detailing the application and operation of the bespoke legal mechanism to enable co-operation with the inquiry and the safeguards that will apply.”
“The approach is modelled on the mechanism contained in the Criminal Justice (International Co-Operation) Act 2019, which Deputies will be aware was enacted to enable the taking of oral evidence from An Garda Síochána for the purposes of UK Troubles-related inquests such as the Kingsmill massacre inquest. Importantly, this Bill includes some new features. These take account of the nature of the inquiry and its broader terms of reference and are aimed at maximising the evidential opportunities available to the chairman and enhancing transparency. As I go through the key sections of this relatively short Bill - 12 sections in all - I will touch on these new features. The Bill is a stand-alone Bill concerned solely with the provision of assistance to the Omagh bombing inquiry.”
“My Department and the Garda Commissioner have dedicated resources in place to support the disclosure process to ensure that it is conducted with rigour and that all potentially relevant material is made available to the inquiry in line with the memorandum of understanding. This is vital and the Government is at one with counsel to the inquiry when he said, on announcing that the first evidential hearings will now start in September, that it is important that the inquiry is not rushed and that it is as comprehensive as it can be in addressing its terms of reference. The Bill before the House provides a bespoke legal mechanism to facilitate the taking of sworn evidence from State bodies and former ministerial officeholders before a judge of the High Court at the request of the chairman of the inquiry.”
“These measures are in operation and working well with a very significant quantity of State materials, principally Garda Síochána materials, disclosed to the inquiry with more being disclosed on a rolling basis. I understand that to date approximately 20,000 pages of material have been provided by the Irish State to the Omagh bombing inquiry. I welcome the acknowledgement by counsel to the inquiry at its hearing last Thursday of the "considerable efforts that have been made" by Irish authorities and the "effective progress" that has been made to respond to the inquiry's requests.”
“There are legal complexities that must be navigated to ensure constituency with the laws of Ireland and the Government's duty to safeguard the essential interests of the State and the constitutional and other rights of citizens. Successive Governments have navigated similar challenges in the past, including assisting the Northern Ireland courts during the civil proceedings taken by the families and enacting primary and secondary legislation to support cross-Border co-operation with United Kingdom authorities. I have referred to the actions we have already taken to support the Omagh inquiry. These include agreeing a memorandum of understanding with the chairman of the inquiry last April to guide the disclosure of State materials and implementing measures to support the disclosure of sensitive personal data.”
“The families and survivors in their eloquent testimony to the inquiry's commemorative hearing last year gave voice to the enormity of that loss and its enduring toll. The formal decision taken by the Government on 9 July 2024 to assist the inquiry and to authorise officials to engage with the inquiry to explore mechanisms for working together was taken in recognition of the importance of the inquiry for families and survivors and their quest for truth and justice. The programme for Government also clearly reiterates our commitment stating that we will "play our full part in legacy processes ... including facilitating and supporting the Omagh inquiry". Delivering on our commitment to assist an inquiry established by another sovereign state is not without its challenges.”
“The Bill deals with the taking of oral evidence before our courts and will sit alongside the measures I have already put in place to facilitate the disclosure of documentary materials to the inquiry. Colleagues may recall that in April of last year I entered into a memorandum of understanding with the inquiry to provide it with relevant documents held by the State. The bombing of the town of Omagh on 15 August 1998 was the single worst atrocity of the Troubles. It was a senseless, brutal terrorist attack resulting in the loss of 31 lives and at least 220 people were injured. The Government has condemned the abhorrent criminal actions of those who planned and perpetrated the attack and planted and detonated the bomb. I do so again today.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the House. This Bill has a single purpose - to assist the Omagh Bombing Inquiry established by the Secretary State for Northern Ireland in February 2024 to investigate whether the bombing could have been prevented by the United Kingdom's state authorities. Its terms of reference are set out in the Schedule to the Bill for ease of reference. The Government has made clear its commitment to facilitating and supporting the work of the inquiry to the greatest extent possible. The Bill before the House is another important step towards delivering on that commitment.”
“This included when it was a transfer back to a country within the Council of Europe. I hear a bell, which I think means I have to shut up.”
“What prompted the proposed letter that was signed by Ireland and others was the new interpretation that has been applied by the ECHR in a small number of cases that gave a broader definition of inhuman and degrading treatment. In particular, what prompted it was that a number of member states, not Ireland, had found difficulties in deporting individuals who had been convicted of serious criminal offences back to the countries from where they came, including countries in the Council of Europe. I do not have the names of the cases on me at present but there were three in particular. Some of the grounds relied upon included that the health service in the country to which the convicted person was to be returned would not provide the person with the same level of health treatment that they had received in the member state country.”
“The issue that arose at the Council of Europe, and which Ireland signed up to along with 26 other members of the Council of Europe including the United Kingdom, was in respect of the court's interpretation of Article 3 and, in particular, the definition of inhuman and degrading treatment. As was mentioned by Senator Stephenson, traditionally, the phrase "inhuman and degrading treatment" was used in cases such as that of the hooded men, which we all recall, where severe treatment was used against individuals who were being detained by the state. Indeed, Ireland won that case in the 1970s, not on the grounds of torture but on the grounds of inhuman and degrading treatment.”
“I thank Senator McDowell for his amendment and thank colleagues for their contributions. The first issue concerns the judgment in the case brought by Mr. A and Mr. J. I will not comment too much on that because I am appealing that judgment and anything I want to say will be said in the Court of Appeal rather than in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I need to respect the separation of powers. The only point I would make is that the basis for the Francovich damages claim in that case was based on decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU. The other issue that was referred to by Senator Mullen was in respect of the ECHR, which obviously has a different thread and line of judgments.”
“The suggestion that the chief inspector will be precluded from attending before, say, the Oireachtas justice committee, is wrong. Obviously, he or she can attend. There is no issue about that. It is not for me to dictate to committees who can or cannot attend before them. I suspect this will be very much like the Inspector of Prisons, and the chief inspector will be invited before a committee and questioned. What is set out here is that he or she "shall not be required to give account before a committee for any matter which is or has been, or may be at a future date, the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State." It is a protection for the chief inspector that he or she does not have to give information in respect of a matter that could be the subject of proceedings.”
“It is entirely a matter for the chief inspector to put what he wants into his report. I certainly hope I will be able to lay a full, unredacted version of his report before the Houses.”
“Section 209, which deals with the annual report of the chief inspector, provides that he is required "not later than 3 months after the end of each year" to produce and "submit to the Minister an annual report on the performance of the Chief Inspector’s functions". I am then required to "cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas". It is not unusual that the Bill provides that any part of the report that would "prejudice the security of a designated asylum border facility", "prejudice the interests of national security" or "purport to assign criminal or civil liability" can be "redacted". Under the prisons legislation, I receive reports from the Inspector of Prisons but there are parts of those reports that can be redacted if it is in the public interest to do so.”
“The chief inspector shall also produce a report annually on the performance of their functions and other related matters from the previous year. I then cause a copy of that report to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Obviously, the function of the chief inspector, which very much replicates what Senator Boyhan wants to achieve, will play a critical role in guaranteeing the fundamental rights of international protection applicants. I ask Senators to look through Part 12. They will see a detailed series of provisions contained within it, which include a requirement for the report to be prepared and to come back before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I thank the Senator for his amendment, but I think the provision within Part 12 is stronger than what is proposed in his amendment.”
“I will have to brush up on both of them. Certainly, if there is an obligation on me or my Department to produce something, I know I will be reminded by Seanad Éireann to do it and I will certainly comply with Standing Orders. However, I think the amendment is unnecessary because of the detailed provision contained in Part 12 of the Bill before the Seanad. In Part 12, there is a whole section dealing with the chief inspector of asylum and border procedures. The Bill establishes the office of a new chief inspector. Under the legislation, his role will be to monitor the treatment of applicants in the asylum border procedure. It provides that the chief inspector shall have the power to receive complaints, carry out inspections and conduct formal investigations to ensure the fundamental rights of applicants are upheld at all times.”
“The Senator has highlighted an issue that is under discussion between my Department and the Department of children. Some functions are at present carried out by Tusla; further functions will have to be provided in respect of unaccompanied minors. Discussion on that is ongoing between the two Departments. A final decision has not been made as to what entity will be designated as responsible for unaccompanied minors. The responsibility under the legislation is given to me to do it by way of secondary legislation. Whenever this legislation is enacted, promptly after that I will have to designate by statutory instrument the appropriate authority, whether Tusla or another entity.”
“I thank Senator Ryan for her amendment and her contribution to the debate. I do not propose to accept it. It is out of sync with where the Senator wishes to place it in the legislation. It would be just ahead of section 3, which deals with regulations and orders. Once the legislation commences, whatever agency is responsible for functions under it will have to be fully resourced. We spoke yesterday of legal counselling and the extra financing gone to the Legal Aid Board this year to enable it to deal with the extra work it will have once the legislation is enacted. The same will be the case with whatever competent authority is designated as having responsibility for children. The amendment is unnecessary and I cannot accept it.”
“Amendment No. 21, as drafted, is on "the application and interpretation of this Act", so it is not limiting it to simple procedures under the different regulations. It is in respect of the entire Bill. That Act would include the assessment of the application for asylum of the child. The amendment is broader than what is provided for in the regulations and, for that reason, I cannot accept it.”
“If they are not, then they are recognising that asylum can be refused to a child. The phrase "best interests" is in the context of certain Parts and Chapters of the Bill. We cannot have a situation where, if someone establishes that they are a child and they apply, they automatically get asylum.”
“As Senators will know, a regulation is directly effective if the regulation, which sets out procedures, says the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. We have also transposed it in this Bill in many different areas. We also have to be careful to recognise that we are entitled to refuse asylum to a child. Maybe people will look at me and think that is an horrific thing to say. If the whole Bill were to be interpreted on the basis of what was in the best interests of the child, then any interpretation would be that the child's best interests would be met by staying in Ireland. That is not the test that can be applied. It would be unfair on the State to say that any child who applied for asylum here was automatically entitled to it. I presume that is not what the Senators are saying.”
“The reception conditions directive, the asylum and migration management regulation and the qualification regulation each make mention of family tracing for unaccompanied minors and the assistance to be provided to those minors in tracing their family members. Amendment No. 377 provides that the Minister shall have responsibility for ensuring that family tracing is undertaken in a timely manner. This amendment is necessary to safeguard the rights of unaccompanied minors within the international protection process. I therefore ask Senators to accept amendment No. 377.”
“This is a directly legally binding obligation on the State. As such, it is not necessary to include these provisions in the Bill. Similarly, amendment No. 268 concerns the best interest of the child in the context of the qualification regulation. Article 20 of that regulation sets out that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for competent authorities of the State when applying provisions of those regulations to minors. This is a directly legally binding obligation on the State. As such, it is unnecessary to include the provision in the Bill. I have also proposed amendment No. 377, which concerns family tracing for unaccompanied minors.”
“34 concerns the best interests of the child with respect to the collection of biometric data for the purposes of the Eurodac regulation. Regarding the Eurodac regulation, section 15 of the Bill clearly provides for the safeguards required by the Eurodac regulation in relation to the collection of biometric data from children. I do not believe a further provision is unnecessary. Amendment No. 199 relates to the best interests of the child in procedures under the asylum and migration management regulation, AMMR. My amendment No. 200 proposes a similar provision in relation to AMMR. Amendments Nos. 215 and 262 concern Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation. Article 22 provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration when applying that regulation.”
“21, I will not accept it because by listing out how we assess the best interests of the child, we are limiting it. Amendment No. 30 is a general provision regarding the best interests of the child. Article 23 of the asylum and migration management regulation and Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation set out that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for the State or the competent authorities of the State with respect to all procedures provided for in those regulations. That is a legally binding obligation on the State as a result of these regulations being directly applicable. As such, it is unnecessary to include amendment No. 30 in the Bill, and I do not propose to accept it. Amendment No.”
“I think that by defining them, it is probably limiting them because "the best interests of the child" is a general term that any entity, whether it is the determining authority or a court reviewing the legislation, will be required to have a broader assessment of. Amendment No. 21 would, in fact, limit it. In terms of the amendments that I do not intend to accept, namely, amendments Nos. 21, 30, 34, 199, 215, 262, and 268, my officials and the Attorney General have examined the requirements of the directives and regulation measures in relation to the consideration of the best interests of the child. As I said, I have brought forward the necessary amendments to make further provision and they are provided for in amendments Nos. 200 and 377, to which I referred a few moments ago. Regarding amendment No.”
“It states 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." Moreover, amendment No. 377 deals with the area of family tracing for unaccompanied minors and there is reference to the child as well. What is proposed in amendment No. 21 is that "the best interests of the child" would somehow be defined or set out in six categories. Subsection (2)(b) states that "In determining for the purposes of subsection (a) what is in the best interests of the child, the following factors shall be taken into account" and it then sets out six factors.”
“I thank Senators for their contributions and for moving this amendment. If Members look throughout the Bill as it is at present, there are numerous references to "the best interests of the child". For example, section 41 states that, "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the application of this Chapter." Section 51 also states that, "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the application of this Chapter." I now propose to include even further reference to it in the amendments. If Members look at amendment No. 200, they will see that I am proposing that there be a new section 70, which will refer to Part 4 of the Bill.”
“If somebody arrives into the IPO and they are told to go to the screening centre in Rathmines, unless they understand it, we cannot expect them to be able to go to the screening centre in Rathmines. They will be coherently told where they have to go to. Senator Higgins does not need to be concerned about that. They will be coherently told, in whatever language can be communicated, where they have to go to. It is a small communication but it is an important obligation that applicants must comply with and it is a perfectly reasonable application on the part of the State to say they have to go to the screening centre because we want to verify their identity.”
“It is also not unreasonable for the State to check that, and if it is found to be false, to put to the person that the Eurodac system says that is not their identity but this is their identity and let the person respond to that. Ultimately, the process will play out. It will be part of the evidence in the application process if somebody's identity is questionable and they have not established the correct identity. If somebody comes in and gives false identification, if and when that arises, that is a very material factor in determining whether or not the person should be entitled to receive asylum.”
“I am sorry, but I am responding to the Senator. The other issue she mentioned was facial recognition. She referred to the UK's technology in the Home Office. One of the things that is very noticeable is that the UK is at a considerable disadvantage now that it is no longer in the European Union, because the European Union does have very advanced technology systems and it does have quite a significant database in terms of asylum applications. When somebody comes in to claim asylum, it is not unreasonable to ask them for their name, their identity and other details. I think Senator Higgins will agree that it is perfectly reasonable to be able to ask somebody their name and for them to give their details and their background.”
“In terms of the second point, huge amounts of translation services are provided in the IPO. That is absolutely necessary because people who cannot speak English who are coming here claiming asylum have to be understood and translated. Those services are there and they will be there. We cannot have any system operating either for the benefit of the asylum applicant or indeed fairly for the State, unless people can comprehensively understand what is being said. People will be understood in terms of their own language.”
“Senators have spoken very eloquently about the rights of asylum applicants and about how we need to protect those rights. I thoroughly agree. At the same time, we also have to protect and vindicate the rights and entitlements of the State. We must ensure that the system is controlled and coherent and that it ensures that people who are legitimately fleeing persecution and war are provided with asylum.”
“55 concerns the safeguards for applicants with special reception needs. As the proposed wording is very similar to my own amendment No. 195, I do not propose to accept it. Amendment No. 56 concerns the ordering of detention in writing by the courts. Provisions for detention by the courts are laid out in my own amendment No. 191. Amendment No. 57 concerns the right of an applicant to apply to the High Court for a judicial review of the lawfulness of such detention. My own amendment No. 191 provides for information to be given to the applicant about their constitutional right to challenge their detention under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution. That is my response in respect of the proposed amendments. To go back to the point I emphasised at the outset, what is required here is an obligation that the State puts on applicants.”
“53 and 54 concern further provisions for the detention of minors, particularly alternatives to detention. My amendment No. 186, on "Alternatives to detention", and my amendment No. 187, on "Measures relating to minors", introduce comprehensive provisions for alternatives to detention and the application of those measures to minors. The provisions I am proposing have been carefully drafted to align with the provisions of the reception conditions directive, and introduce all the required safeguards for the limited circumstances where such provisions may be used. Therefore, I will not accept amendments Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 53 and 54. Amendment No. 52 proposes to delete text which is also proposed to be deleted by my amendment No. 37, so that is unnecessary. Amendment No.”
“By the way, there is also a provision in the Bill which allows a person to be excused attendance at a screening centre. There are circumstances where they can be excused from having to attend, but that is an excuse that is provided by the State. We permit them not to attend. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 concern provisions for the detention of minors. The text it amends is proposed to be deleted by my own amendment No. 37. The matters that amendments Nos. 47 and 48 address, including the best interests of the child in accommodation when minors are detained, are addressed in my own amendment No. 192, which I referred to earlier. I therefore do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Amendments Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive, and amendments Nos.”
“42, which would require that facial image data not be used to identify an applicant, because it would restrict the use of the Eurodac system, which is a central system on which the migration pact relies. Senator Black spoke about facial recognition, but some of the reports she referred to are from five or ten years ago. The technology has advanced considerably since then. I believe the types of issues the Senator highlighted, which were identified in reports, have been minimised as a result of the advancement of technology. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 refer to text which is proposed to be deleted by my amendment No. 37. Amendment No. 46 concerns the detention of applicants with special reception needs. My amendment No. 195 makes detailed provision for the detention of applicants with special reception needs.”
“It is important to emphasise again that such arrest and detention is short-term in nature and is for one specific purpose only: to ensure the applicant attends the screening centre and has their identity verified. It is completely unreasonable for a person claiming asylum in Ireland not to go to a screening centre so that we can have their identity verified. As regards "the right to access legal representation", I am introducing further amendments on this matter. My own amendment No. 37, which seeks to amend section 24, and the related amendments Nos. 173 to 198, inclusive, will address these issues. My amendments have been drafted to align with the reception conditions directive, which governs arrest and detention. Therefore, I do not intend to accept this amendment. I cannot accept amendment No.”
“This amendment arises in the context of arrest and detention for the purpose of bringing a person to a screening centre who has failed to co-operate with a direction under section 22 to attend such a centre. Such arrest and detention will only be as a last resort and only for as long as is required to bring the applicant to the screening centre to verify their identity, and in any event, for no longer than two days. It is not clear what the Senators are referring to with the proposed reference to "the appeal mechanism". There is no appeal provided for against the requirement to undergo the screening process, the making of a direction under section 22 or indeed the arrest and detention itself.”
“In circumstances where section 24 applies, these amendments would require the immigration officer or a member of the Garda to inform the applicant of "the appeal mechanism" and "the right to access legal representation", would provide for a ground of detention related to "criminal offending" and would provide for a warrant at the time. I reiterate that there is no appeal mechanism when it comes to the screening process. We are talking about someone being told they have to travel to the screening centre to get themselves identified. There is no appeal against that. You have to do that; it is an obligation. For this reason, I am unable to accept amendment No. 39.”
“192, which takes on board many of the concerns highlighted by Deputies in the Dáil that are similar to the ones echoed here by Senators. A new section of the Bill to be inserted by the amendment in question - section 105, entitled "Detention as last resort" - provides that "Minors shall, as a rule, not be detained but shall be placed in suitable accommodation in accordance with Chapter 2". This two-page amendment sets out the details of why and how detention will be a last resort. For that reason, I do not think amendment No. 19 from Senators Harmon, Cosgrove, Noonan and Stephenson is necessary. As amendment No. 38 is almost identical in wording to my own proposed amendment No. 184, I do not intend to accept it. Amendments Nos. 39 to 41, inclusive, seek to amend section 24 of the Bill.”
“It is only in that context that the provisions we are talking about, with regard to arrest and detention, arise. I mentioned the example of somebody who refuses to go to the screening centre in Rathmines for the system. If somebody who has come in to claim asylum says that they are not going to bother going up to the screening centre in Rathmines, it is unacceptable to expect simply to be provided with accommodation in order to go through the process. The State has to be given some rights in this balancing act, and that is what we are discussing here. On the specific amendments, amendment No. 19 proposes to introduce a new section 2(2) into the Bill to define "measure of last resort" with regard to the detention of minors. Senator Noonan may not be aware that I have tabled a Government amendment, No.”
“When we check on Eurodac a person who has come into Ireland to claim asylum, we may see that they have previously claimed asylum in Greece, Germany or Belgium. I will not mention the UK because it is not part of Eurodac. If the person has said in those three countries that they are from a certain country, but they have changed their narrative when it comes to Ireland, that is relevant information for us to have. We cannot be criticised as a State for saying we have identified that a person who said they were from Jordan when they applied for asylum in Greece is now saying in Ireland that they are from Palestine. There has to be some balance in favour of the State to ensure it can accurately and coherently assess applications for international protection.”
“I mentioned earlier that section 24 of the Bill provides for a series of tests that must be complied with in order for a very short-term detention, which cannot be for more than 12 hours, to take place. One of them is that it has to be assessed by the member or officer that it is in the best interests of the child and it safeguards the unaccompanied minor. It also has to be necessary for the purposes of determining or verifying the identity or nationality of the unaccompanied minor. Senator Higgins criticised the inclusion within this provision of the identification of the person's nationality as though this is some form of national profiling. I will not say "racial profiling". It is, in part, national profiling because we want to establish where the person has derived from.”
“If somebody who has come in says that they are not going to go to the screening centre in Rathmines, the State has to have the power to tell them that they have to go there, and if they do not go there and they do not allow themselves to be assessed on Eurodac and screened in that context, they are committing an offence. In that instance, there is permission to use arrest and detention. This is the only context in which a child or unaccompanied minor could find themselves being arrested and detained. As I mentioned previously, there are certain limitations in respect of how a child can be arrested and detained. It can happen for the purpose of trying to identify them and trying to screen the child.”