It is not grouped.
On prevailing side: this member voted with the winning side in 105 of 744 decisive votes (4 abstentions excluded). Read it as a government-or-opposition indicator rather than a measure of influence — the figure is near 100% for members supporting the government of the day and near 0% for those opposing it.
This is the point of the site: contributions keep the party held on the day, not the one held now.
| Party | Recorded as | Contributions | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| LAB | Labour | 1,621 | 2020-03-19 – 2026-09-17 |
Membership spells on record: LAB 2007-07-23–2011-04-25 · LAB 2011-02-25–2016-03-09 · LAB 2016-03-10–2020-01-14 · LAB 2020-02-08–2024-11-08 · LAB 2024-11-29–present
It is not grouped.
I cannot see why this amendment was ruled out compared to the other one. The Minister is too proud. The Minister started down the road here in relation to "legal counselling", which should be thrown out. When we looked at this, it took up hours. We still do not bloody well know what it is. We genuinely do not. Nobody here has a clue. Nobody who is working in law has a clue. Why is it in the Bill? It is ridiculous. I am sorry, but the Minister should say he has got that one wrong and we will all move on. He was fair…
It is relevant because now the Minister is bringing in a term that he does not even believe in. We need a bit of levity here. We are going to be here too long. The Minister let out a little nugget out earlier when he said that more amendments will be brought through the Seanad. Why are they being brought through the Seanad? We have eight hours here today, another day here next week and - God knows - maybe even longer. Can the Minister not muster to take this out, because it is a halfway house to nowhere? It is hind…
Take it from me, so.
That is a common thing in here.
That is a bit condescending now.
I do not.
You might explain amendment No. 9 then as well.
Have we finally found a use for Grok? This is where we are going with this - seriously. As I look around the room, the Minister is probably the most qualified legal person in here, I would suspect. How did we get to this point on Committee Stage, after pre-legislative scrutiny and Second Stage, where we have not defined this? I am looking forward to seeing why my amendment was ruled out of order, but I basically just ripped it from the asylum procedure regulation, which the Minister has mentioned. It was a copy and…
The committee meeting this week makes a mockery of what the Minister is proposing. Civil legal aid is basically about to collapse. I accept some of the pressures are brought about by changes internationally over recent years. The Minister is patting himself on the back because of the increase he got from Government but it needs to be multiples of that. In the long run, it will save the State. It is also just the right thing to do. The fraction of money given to this is actually disgraceful. I am really looking forw…
Why not bring it forward now, so?
I move amendment No. 8: In page 23, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: "(2) A reference in this Act to a ‘measure of last resort’ means, in relation to an adult or a child, a measure that is taken only after all non-custodial alternatives to detention have been duly considered, in accordance with Recital 33 and Article 10(2) of the Reception Conditions Directive.". This amendment defines "measure of last resort" to ensure that "non-custodial alternatives" are enshrined in the Bill. We are spending an…
Hear, hear.
We need a definition. We in the Labour Party included this amendment because we felt we are now crossing into a new level we have never before dealt with in the State in respect of holding people, including children, who are vulnerable. This is going down a road which is unacceptable to many. I listened to what the Minister said. Some of what he said I genuinely accept, when he includes the three provisos. The third is very subjective. I accept he referred to all three. The third one is quite subjective and that is…
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle-----
For complete clarity, if the wording "free of charge" was not in the amendment, the likelihood is that these amendments could have been accepted.
Yes, I understand.
We are always learning in this place, trust me.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for that clarification.
This needs to be defined. We cannot leave this loose. We already had a discussion on the previous amendment in relation to how we are moving into new territory as regards detaining children. It is never good when children are being detained. It is not acceptable. However, we also have to have a definition as regards what we are doing to include the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in the application of the Act's provision by inserting a definition into the interpretation section so that it wil…