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 36 of 84.
“Looking at the history of immigration officers in Ireland to date, that has been the case and there is no reason to believe that will be departed from in the future.”
“I will consider the issue about the production of the warrant within the Department. Irrespective of that, the definitions section is the wrong place to put it. I will consider it and discuss it with my officials. If it is deemed necessary, I will bring forward an amendment at Report Stage. I am not going into operational detail now as to who would be the immigration officers as it would not be appropriate. We are setting out the architecture of the legislation. No matter who the immigration officers are or what the basis under which they are employed is, whether they are gardaí, Department of justice officials or are contracted, they will all have to comply with obligations in ensuring that the law is upheld and that the human rights of individuals are respected.”
“I will examine the 2004 legislation to see if it is there and if it is not, I will give consideration to this on Report Stage. I know the Senators did not intend this, but we are not in a situation similar to what is happening in the United States. Immigration officers, whether they are gardaí or officials from the Department of justice, exercise their considerable powers very responsibly and professionally and with due regard for the sensitivities and rights of the individuals concerned.”
“What is being proposed with this amendment is that after that we would include: "and any immigration officer performing functions conferred on him or her by this Act shall, if requested by a person affected, produce the warrant of appointment or a copy of it to that person". I do not have a problem with the substance of what is there but it would look very unusual and anomalous to include what is in effect an operative provision in a definitions section. I was also looking on the Internet to see whether within the Immigration Act there is such a provision as is required here. I think there is a requirement to produce the warrant if it is requested but I just could not find it. The amendment is not appropriate here.”
“I thank Senators Higgins, Ruane and Black for the amendment It is important to recall that the amendment is seeking to amend what is still a provision within section 2, which is the definition section. The definition the proposed amendment seeks to deal with is the definition of "immigration officer" and the Bill, at present, simply states "immigration officer” has the meaning it has in the Act of 2004. That should be the case. It should be the case that there is consistency in our legislation. It would look very unusual for this amendment the Senators are proposing to be in a definitions section. The definitions section simply sets out what the terms in the Bill actually mean. "Immigration officer” has the meaning it has in the Act of 2004, meaning the Immigration Act 2004.”
“They are still entitled to the same social welfare. If we look at section 144, it talks about the extension to beneficiaries of international protection of certain rights. These include rights in terms of conditions applicable to Irish citizens, including "the same medical care and the same social welfare benefits".”
“It is for beneficiaries of international protection. It is setting out the rights to which they are entitled once they have been granted protection under the Bill. Amendment No. 269 simply deletes, “and the same social welfare”, and substitutes, “, social welfare”, so there is no significant alteration in respect of what is being proposed there.”
“These amendments make clear that beneficiaries of international protection are entitled to housing benefits on the same basis as Irish citizens, which is a requirement under the qualification regulation. The term "housing benefits" is defined by reference to the appropriate housing legislation. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 272. It proposes to remove any obligation to participate in integration measures on beneficiaries of international protection. While participation in integration measures in Ireland is on a voluntary basis at present, the qualification regulation enables member states to introduce compulsory integration measures.”
“These amendments relate to the rights of beneficiaries of international protection. I have brought forward amendments Nos. 9 and 271. Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment which defines "guardian" as having the same meaning as in the qualifications regulation. The purpose of amendment No. 271 is to allow for amendments to the Children First Act 2015 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, which will be brought forward on Report Stage and will rely on this definition. Amendments Nos. 269, 270 and 273 are technical amendments to section 144. Section 144 sets out certain rights to which beneficiaries of international protection are entitled once they have been granted protection under the Bill.”
“That has not been agreed. It is in discussion at present. In terms of identifying third countries outside the EU to where failed asylum applicants would be sent, that is something that is proposed by the Commission in the draft returns regulation, which has not become a regulation as of yet. That is not an issue that is a live issue, if that is the issue of concern to the Senator.”
“Amendment No. 7 is a technical amendment to update the referencing in the Bill. The asylum procedures regulation was amended on 24 February of this year by two EU regulations regarding the application of the concept of a safe third country and the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at European level. These are EU Regulations 2026/463 and 2026/464. Section 2 is the interpretation section of the Bill giving definitions for terms used throughout the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to insert the most up to date reference to the asylum procedures regulation.”
“Very briefly in reply, because I am conscious there are other amendments, in response to Senator Higgins, there is a very clear definition of legal counselling set out in amendment No. 14. It is extremely detailed. It is very clear what legal counselling involves. Finally, the Senator spoke about the removal of rights in respect of children. There may be some confusion there. What is happening in terms of certain provisions in the Bill, they are not being removed; they are being moved to a different part of the legislation. No rights that unaccompanied minors had are being removed from it. They are being moved to different parts of the provision and I think they went in with the reception conditions part of the legislation.”
“It is too broad in terms of giving an applicant at first instance a right to receive legal representation. That would place far too much of a financial obligation on the State. People can seek legal assistance or legal advice. They are guaranteed to get legal counselling. Finally, in respect of the issue raised by Senator Higgins, I do not think what is proposed is unfair in circumstances in which somebody who is receiving legal aid and legal representation turns around and says they need legal counselling as well. Certainly legal aid and legal representation is probably stronger from the point of view of the applicant compared to the counselling that is being provided. It is only fair on the State to say that those who have legal aid and legal representation cannot then come demanding legal counselling.”
“In terms of what Senators Ryan and Higgins said, maybe I was too cautious in my language by saying the likelihood is that it will be through the Legal Aid Board. It will always be through the Legal Aid Board is probably what I can say to the Senators. Whoever is providing the legal counselling will be providing it through the auspices or under the authority of the Legal Aid Board. They may not be a qualified solicitor or barrister but they will be coming within the parameters of the Legal Aid Board. In terms of indemnity or accountability for it, obviously the Legal Aid Board in providing counselling has obligations to ensure that the counselling it provides is accurate, as it should be. Senator Noonan spoke about his amendment No. 60.”
“I would prefer to respond to Senators individually. I know the House does not do it that way but it would be easier in the long run for me and for the Senators as well to get a full and adequate response. Senator Higgins, in terms of section 81, "legal representative" is going to be a stronger term and a stronger provision for the applicant. Second, in terms of the unaccompanied, minor, as the Senator knows, I will be designating a competent authority as having responsibility for looking after an unaccompanied minor as they go through the process of making their application. That is a role that in part is carried out by Tusla at present and it will be extended under the Bill once it is enacted.”
“In response to Senator Ryan, when we look at the definition that Sinn Féin wanted to include, the likelihood, on the basis of what I have indicated, is that legal counselling will be provided by paralegals or employees of the Legal Aid Board. That is the likely basis upon which it will be provided. In reply to Senator Keogan, this is a litigious and legally heavy area, but there will be an opportunity, by putting in this definition of "legal counselling", for people to be informed and provided with general advice, not legal advice but general advice, as to the procedure in place. That is of benefit to applicants because they will know what the procedure is and what their obligations are.”
“The only role that a legal counsellor will have in respect of that is that he or she will explain to the applicant, will give guidance on and explanation of the criteria and procedure for determining the member state responsible. The legal counsellors are not making any decision in respect of it. They are simply giving the applicants guidance as to what is meant by Chapter 2 of Part 4 in section 72, and onwards, and giving someone an indication that their application will be assessed and that there are certain relevant circumstances in respect of their application. It may be the case that the application could be determined to be the responsibility of another member state. No decision is being made by the counsellor. All he or she is doing is providing guidance in respect of it.”
“I will deal first with Senator Ruane's question. As she will be aware, under Part 4, and in particular Chapter 2, which deals with the determination of the member state responsible, it is the Minister, namely, me, who determines the member state responsible in respect of the application. There is a process that continues in respect of that. Section 74 deals with the "Determination of Member State responsible - assessment whether applicant poses threat to internal security". Section 75 deals with a "Personal interview for determining Member State responsible". A statutory regime is set out there in Chapter 2 of Part 4. It involves the determination of which member state is responsible. In the first instance, that is obviously the determining authority, namely, me.”
“I simply cannot do that because I do not have the resources. However, individuals can apply to the Legal Aid Board to be represented or to seek legal aid.”
“It will be of use to applicants. I must also be conscious, however, that it is not something that inherently requires legal advice. It is about explaining to people who have come from a country and wishes to make an application for asylum that they have an obligation to set out their narrative clearly and honestly as to the basis upon which they are claiming asylum in Ireland. It will also explain to them that their application will be assessed under the accelerated procedure, the asylum border procedure or the other procedures available and that will be determined in a period of time. It will be beneficial and of assistance. It will speed up the process. I must also be conscious of the general clause. I cannot provide mandatory legal aid and legal representation to everyone who comes to Ireland claiming asylum.”
“I want to emphasise, however, that just because the State is providing legal counselling, it does not mean an applicant cannot seek legal advice or legal aid. They can continue to seek legal aid. In many respects what is being provided for by legal counselling is an additional service that will be available to people who at present would not have that. Members will also note that amendment No. 66 states, "An applicant may request legal counselling at any stage". It is important to note that they can be excluded from getting legal counselling if they are already being provided with or assisted by a legal representative. This is an area that has a lot of lawyers practising in it. It will mean that under the Civil Legal Aid Act there will be a requirement for a person designated under the Act to provide legal counselling.”
“Here, it will be the function of the legal counsellor. The function of legal counselling will be to provide guidance on the different procedures under which an application may be examined, the rules related to the admissibility, legal issues arising in the course of the procedure under which the application is examined, and guidance on and explanation of the criteria and procedure for determining the member states responsible in accordance with Part 4. That covers many of the issues raised by Senator Ruane when she wondered what would be covered by legal counselling in terms of the concerns she expressed. There will also be continuous guidance on and assistance with providing information that could help determine the member state responsible.”
“It goes on but I will pause there because one of the questions from Senator Stephenson related to who is going to be providing legal counselling. It will not have to be people who are legally qualified. In fact, it will probably be people who are paralegals or employees hired or contracted by the Legal Aid Board. That is appropriate when we look at what is required in respect of legal counselling. It is predominantly providing guidance on and explanation of the procedure for an application. That is factual advice a person can provide irrespective of whether they have legal qualifications as a practising barrister or solicitor. Senator Noonan mentioned assistance with the lodging of an application. That is provided in many instances at present by advocacy groups or groups that are assisting applicants.”
“It is interesting when we look at the regulations that are being transposed by this Bill, whether it is the asylum procedures regulation or the asylum and migration management regulation, that both of them contain different definitions of what legal counselling is, which is something new not just for this country but for elsewhere as well. What we have sought to do in the proposed definition of legal counselling, which is contained within amendment No. 14, is to set out what in fact legal counselling will be, namely, "any guidance, information or assistance given to an applicant on matters relating to the application procedure by a person appointed under section 11B(1) of the Act of 1995, which is the Civil Legal Aid Act, to provide legal counselling".”
“That is in recognition of the extra duties that are going to rest on the Legal Aid Board because of the changes being proposed in this legislation. As indicated by Senators, it is the case, as I said earlier, that legal counselling is something new in Irish law. It will provide people with general advice and guidance on their application. That does not have to be legal advice. In many instances it is not legal advice, assistance or representation, which are set out elsewhere. The obligations we have under the regulations that govern the legislation I am debating here include at first instance a requirement on Ireland to provide legal counselling. The requirement under the regulations at first instance is to provide legal counselling. When it gets to appeal, there is an obligation on Ireland to provide legal representation.”
“I thank the Senators for their contributions. Ireland does provide a lot of paid-for legal advice and legal representation to applicants for international protection at present. Anyone who has had an opportunity to look at the report of the Legal Aid Board will have seen that just less than 50% of the applications for civil legal aid received by the Legal Aid Board are in respect of international protection. When dealing with that issue, I obviously have to ensure that not all of the resources of the Legal Aid Board are eaten up by international protection, representation or aid. That is why in the budget I managed to allocate an extra €8 million for the purpose of extra funding for the Legal Aid Board.”
“Amendments brought forward by my Department at this stage seek to insert provisions related to the delivery of legal counselling into the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995. As such, this amendment is necessary to maintain a full list of Acts being amended by the Bill. Amendment No. 6 seeks to put in a definition of the Act of 1995, being the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995.”
“Applicants may obtain legal advice at any stage during the procedure in respect of their application to determine the member state responsible under the asylum migration management regulation, AMMR, or in respect of an appeal. Legal advice is given the same meaning as it has under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and may be provided by a practising solicitor or barrister. Amendments Nos. 203, 220, 224 to 226, inclusive, 228 to 233, inclusive, 242 and 243 are technical and drafting amendments that provide clarity and correct errors in the text. Amendment No. 409 is related to the Long Title of the Bill. Contained in the Title of the Bill is the Bill's purpose, a list of the instruments it seeks to implement into Irish law and a list of the other Acts being amended or repealed by its provisions.”
“66 will introduce a new section setting out where an applicant may request legal counselling. It also sets out that it will be provided in line with the asylum procedures regulation and the asylum migration management regulation. Applicants may be excluded from receiving legal counselling where they are already being assisted by a legal representative. Whether or not applicants are being provided with legal counselling or excluded from such shall be recorded in their files. For this reason I propose to not accept amendment No. 65 as amendment No. 66 will account for this. Amendment No. 67 will introduce a new section establishing an applicant's right to consult legal representation under the Bill.”
“I am concerned the amendment to amendment No. 14 would risk bringing the scope of legal counselling too close to that of legal advice, whereby applicants receive individual advice tailored to their personal circumstances. Amendments Nos. 58, 61 and 63 will ensure that applicants are made aware of their right to legal counselling, their right to consult a legal representative and their right to apply for legal advice and legal aid. As has been stated previously, legal counselling is not a requirement for legal aid or legal representation, and as such it is vital that applicants are made aware of their right to avail of such. For this reason I propose to not accept amendments Nos. 60 and 62 as the other amendments will account for these suggestions. Amendment No.”
“By implementing this new additional service we will not be taking away from but, in fact, bolstering that system, ensuring that applicants have access to vital information pertinent to the application process before they have completed the lodging of their application. Work is ongoing in my Department, in conjunction with officials from the Legal Aid Board to implement fully this service when the pact comes into effect. The delivery will most likely take on a multitude of different forms, including digital, group sessions and one-on-one services, depending on the complexity of the applicants' needs. Taking account of the above, I do not propose to accept amendment to amendment No. 14. The Department's legal counselling provisions already accommodate the individual needs of applicants with respect to the delivery of legal counselling.”
“Legal counselling is a new concept in Irish law and will consist of the provision of general advice and guidance in relation to an application, and not legal advice, assistance or representation, which are clearly set out in Ireland on a statutory basis. The goal here is to create a new layer of guidance at the very early stage of an international protection application, which will endeavour to ensure that all applicants are aware of what procedures apply to them and what their courses of action can be. I should also say this is not being introduced to replace the existing systems of civil legal advice and legal aid that are already provided.”
“As the Leas-Chathaoirleach has indicated, we are discussing a group of amendments. The vast majority of the amendments in the grouping are mine but some are not, including amendments Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, 60 and 62, and we will deal with them as I go through them. The amendments I am bringing forward will introduce legal counselling under the Bill. They provide for a definition of legal counselling, setting it distinctly apart from legal advice, legal assistance and legal representation. This is why I will not be accepting amendments Nos. 12 or 13, as they would fully align legal counselling with legal advice, which is not the intention of this service.”
“I have not heard anyone say they would change asylum law in Ireland by doing X, Y or Z. We are sovereign and can do a huge amount of what we wish to do but I am just hearing in the debate that Senators would not have gone into the pact and feel we have lost control. What control do they want? Spell it out. Sorry, I probably should not have stood up.”
“The measures in this are about processing applications quickly and making decisions promptly; not allowing oral hearings, except in exceptional circumstances, on appeal; and restricting family reunification. Those are all policies that I, as Minister for justice of an independent Ireland, have put forward. I do not say this critically of Senators, but I want to hear what proposals they think should be in it. What substantive ones? I have heard none. I am sorry to sound like a schoolteacher.”
“We made a decision in the previous Oireachtas to sign up to this arrangement. We decided to harmonise our asylum laws with other EU countries. That is Irish sovereignty in practice. We agreed to do that. The Houses of the Oireachtas decided to do that on foot of a Government recommendation. We cannot keep saying this is not Irish sovereignty in practice. Regrettably, the debate here is all about saying we should not have gone into the pact. Can people tell me what measures they want in this legislation that are not there? If people want to say we should not allow asylum, let them stand up and say we should put that in there. Will Senators explain to me what they want to see in this? Rather than saying they would not have gone into the pact, let them think of substantive measures they would like to see here.”
“On the solidarity mechanism Senator Keogan referred to, we are not opting in to accepting individuals; we are making a financial contribution in the region of €9 million. A member state can choose to go down the route of accepting applicants or making a financial contribution and we are doing the latter. On Operation Sonnet, I am pleased with the Garda national immigration bureau. There is strong co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda. As Senator McDowell mentioned, a large part of this involves the trafficking of individuals, unfortunately. That is a serious offence that needs to be policed, and is being policed, irrespective of the policing of the common travel area. It involves significant co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI.”
“Going it alone, doing our own thing, is not necessarily a recipe for success in trying to get greater control of the asylum system. At the same time, we need to be able to have an honest discussion about immigration. Sometimes, and understandably so, people shy away from talking about it because it is manipulated and weaponised by people who are on the extremes. For a centre-ground political system such as Ireland's and as represented in this House, we have to be able to discuss it because if we do not discuss it and set forward what our honest views are in respect of it, then it will be weaponised by the extremes.”
“That did not happen when people went to America in the past. I do not morally condemn anyone seeking to move to improve their lives. However, it is the case that we have to try to have a balance between the rights we protect and the State we seek to protect. I ask the Senator to consider it. Sometimes a simplistic analysis is put forward that if we had not gone into the pact we would not have this trouble. I believe, if we had stayed out of the pact and gone on our own, we would be in a worse condition. I gave the statistics for last year with the reduction in asylum numbers throughout the European Union. They are approximately 20% down. In Ireland, they are 30% down. In the UK, which decided to go it alone, they are 4% down.”
“The world has to bear the responsibility equally for asylum applicants. However, it is unquestionably the case, looking at the statistics for Ireland, that the majority of people who apply for asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution and war do not get it because the finding is that they are not. I have to be able to say that and we have to have an open and frank discussion about it. I agree with Senator McDowell. I do not morally condemn anyone who wants to come to Ireland or the European Union to try to make a better life. I slightly disagree with the comparison with what happened in the 19th century or 20th century in Ireland. Asylum now puts significant obligations on states that were not there before, including providing accommodation and processing applications.”
“I know we want to get on to amendments, but it is sometimes worth having a broader debate, although there was a Second Stage debate. I cannot change the Lisbon treaty that was signed in 2004. A provision was included in Article 18 of the charter that the right to asylum shall be respected in the European Union. EU countries - and this is apparent to me from meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council - recognise that there is a limit to the number of people who can be accommodated by the European Union. That is the current view of the European Union. Senator Higgins referred to the disruption and chaos in the world. That is of course correct, but it does not mean that a small section of the world is responsible for accepting a significant number of asylum applicants.”
“It entered an agreement with France that there would be one in and one out and we can see what its view of that is. I will continue to engage with my colleagues in the UK. There is good co-operation between the Home Office and the Department of justice and improvements are deriving from it. However, short of putting up a hard Border, it is extremely difficult to stop people coming in. We need to ensure and emphasise that if people have applied for asylum in the UK, they cannot apply in Ireland and vice versa and these factors will be taken into account in the asylum pact. That was in respect of amendment No. 5. I cannot accept amendment No. 8 either or the final amendment, which I said I was considering, amendment No. 382. I will deal briefly with some of the comments made by Senator McDowell.”
“At present, the UK is designated under Irish law as a safe third country because it is a safe third country. In practice, we are not sending people back to the UK because they have come from there or have already applied there. Similarly, the UK is not sending back to Ireland people who applied in Ireland and then went to the UK. We just talked about people coming from Scotland to Northern Ireland down to the South. Similarly, the British Government talked to me about people coming into Dublin Airport, going to Belfast and travelling across, getting into the UK that way. Therefore, in terms of operationalising it with returns from one jurisdiction to the other and the same numbers going across each time, the reality of what the British Government is doing at the moment has to be appreciated.”
“What is Sinn Féin's proposal to stop people who are not entitled to use the common travel area travelling from Northern Ireland to the Republic? I appreciate it is a complex issue. What I have done, however, is to have meetings as recently as last week with the British Government in Cork where we discussed abuse of the common travel area. We need to call it abuse of the common travel area because that is what it is. One of the things I will seek to agree with the British Government is an increase in data sharing. Data is important in this and the more data we have about people who have applied in the UK and then apply here or vice versa , the better. We will also agree to have greater operational measures to ensure the common travel area is not abused.”
“It is a real challenge for me as Minister and for legislators to determine what we can do in respect of the common travel area. I have emphasised previously that the common travel area is there for the benefit of citizens of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I would like Senators and political parties to emphasise that more. People are not permitted to travel from Northern Ireland into the Republic if they are not citizens of Ireland, the UK or the Channel Islands, which are also in it. That can be emphasised. On Senator McCormack's question about what we are doing, I said earlier, if we want to ensure people do not come from Northern Ireland into the Republic unless they are citizens of the Irish jurisdictions, we put up a hard Border. The Senator does not want a hard Border, just as much as I do not. I also asked Deputy Carthy this.”
“Even if we were not in the migration pact - if we had decided to do what Denmark did - we would still find ourselves in the situation where people will come to Ireland to claim asylum. We will still find ourselves attached to a part of the United Kingdom, with people coming down to Ireland because it is an attractive location and English speaking. Therefore, we need to have a more advanced view of the consequences of not signing up to the migration pact. People's view is that we would be in a much better position and that we would be like Denmark and people would not come in. That is not an accurate counterfactual. We would still find ourselves attached to part of the United Kingdom and large numbers of people wanting to come here. Amendment No. 5 is about the common travel area.”
“In the previous Dáil and Seanad, a decision was made to opt in to the regulations and directives that make up the migration pact. That was Irish sovereignty in practice and if people want to opt out of the pact, although I do not know how that can be done, the vote would not be in favour of those who say we should never have opted in to the regulations and directives. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 3 or 4 in respect of sovereignty because this is Ireland exercising its sovereignty. One of the issues raised by Sinn Féin in the Lower House was that we should not have opted in to the migration pact, that we made a terrible mistake. There are people outside Sinn Féin who say that as well. I ask, only partly rhetorically, what they would do to change Ireland's asylum laws?”
“We made a decision back in the early 1970s to join what was then the European Economic Community. That was a sovereign exercise by the Irish people. We decided to join it and subsequently we made a decision about the Lisbon treaty. The Irish people decided to sign up to it. They were all exercises of Irish sovereignty. Sovereignty also means we can make a decision to share our sovereignty with others in areas where we think it is appropriate and beneficial to us to do so. On the decisions made on the Lisbon treaty, one of the things we opted out of was the area of justice and home affairs, but we said we could opt into it under Protocol No. 21. Again, that is an example of Ireland making a decision based on our sovereign choice.”
“I want to thank in the first instance Senator Ryan for amendment No. 3. I propose to respond to amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, 8 and 382 together as they relate to matters regarding Ireland's sovereignty and the common travel area. I will start by looking at amendment No. 3 itself, which states, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the sovereign authority of the State ... to determine policy in respect of immigration ... " We need to recognise that what we are doing here today is Irish sovereignty in practice. We are debating legislation that was passed by the Lower House and has come here to decide what policy Ireland wants as its asylum law for this time onwards in the 21st century. It is our policy. It is our sovereignty. Our Constitution says we are a sovereign, independent, democratic State.”
“In terms of the reception directive, which is a European law, Ireland is required to provide accommodation, as is every European Union country by the way, including Denmark. We are required to provide accommodation to people who come into Ireland claiming asylum.”