In that aspect-----

For clarity, I already acknowledged that the issue of language and understanding is there. That is the reason we were asking why it is not there in relation to amendment No. 37. I know it is in other areas. I am just looking for the same provision that the Minister rightly said is so important in other areas in order that it would also be there at the key point when a person is informed of the obligation to go to the screening centre. It could be a garda or an immigration officer. It is not necessarily at the Inter…

I strongly support this amendment from Senator Boyhan. I urge the Minister to accept it. As has been pointed out, it is an obligation that is there. Given that there are so many issues we will not get to discuss, at a minimum we should be in a position to discuss how the concerns we have identified have played out in the report. On humane treatment, there are provisions for the thresholds for medical age assessments for children and how that will be applied. There are provisions and questions on care and medical ca…

I have a single extra sentence that relates directly to this. In the mechanism in the Bill that refers to a chief inspector, there is not clarity with regard to the powers that the chief inspector will have., Crucially, there seems to be a gagging mechanism in the Bill that will make the chief inspector unable to answer to Oireachtas committees. Unless we have a report structure, we are in danger that the chief inspector inspecting these places of residence will be precluded by the Bill from properly answering to a…

Will the Minister confirm that the chief inspector is limited in their ability to report to or speak to committees of the Oireachtas? I do not actually think it is a replacement if we have a chief inspector who is not free to speak to an Oireachtas committee or to testify before it.

For the record, the Bill provides that "The Chief Inspector shall not be required to give account before a committee for any matter which is or has been-----"

I am reading from section 210(2). It refers to "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." That will cover any matter that may be controversial or subject in the future to any kind of court or tribunal. I do not believe that is good practice. The chief inspector should not have such a broad preclusion where they are allowed to give account of issues without having such a clear get-out clause from future accountability. We do not n…

They are sleeping on the streets.

I will respond to the comments by the Minister. He has indicated his intention to bring substantial new amendments on Report Stage, covering such important topics as permissions to enter or remain and questions of detention, monitoring and data sharing. These are very substantive. They are not minor or technical amendments but rather substantive, core topics. We have just been told that they will be introduced as Report Stage amendments, but of course in the Seanad that means the very last Stage, effectively. By it…

There are a number of things I could comment on but I am keen, as I am sure others are, to move to the many amendments we have to cover. There is one thing that needs to be said. It has been stated as if it is a fact multiple times that economics is the driver of asylum seeking. Even the Minister suggested that when we look at the figures, it is when our economy is good that asylum seekers come in. We need for context to look at what is actually driving asylum seeking internationally. The fact is that the figures f…

We have all been awaiting the definition of "legal counselling". It has now come, but with a large set of concerns, as we have heard outlined. I want to delve a little bit more into the question of who a legal counsellor might be. Under the proposed definition, the "guidance, information or assistance" to be given by the legal counsellor is strictly limited. The Government sets out in amendment No. 14 that it may include "guidance on, and explanation of, the procedure in respect of an application, including informa…

A couple of issues arise. We are told the advice is likely to come from employees of the Legal Aid Board. Perhaps a better approach would have been to say that it would come from employees of the Legal Aid Board. We could allocate the resources of the State and have a number of employees. We would then be in a situation where there could be a sense of accountability. With respect, the Minister has not addressed the concerns about the regulation or accountability of those providing this legal counselling. The Legal …

I have two very quick further questions. On section 81, as we were saying previously, if somebody is proposed to be removed to a different member state, they would be notified. The Minister then changed it from "legal counselling" to just "legal representative". Could he clarify what the intention is there and what happens to persons who do not have a legal representative when their removal is proposed? Will they believe that the legal counsellor is going to know what is happening to them? Will they be given an opp…

Just to reiterate in respect of minors that the Government's later amendments - amendment No. 102 and others - remove the requirement for the particular necessary skills and expertise in the persons who are providing that representation to the minor. They also allow that somebody may be representing up to 30 minors. I do not believe that adequately addresses the concern. On amendment No. 60, if the Minister feels that the language "shall be entitled to", I think the key thing is that they would be told of their rig…

The Minister might apologise as I need a clarification because these amendments came quite late. As the Minister will know, we had a number of areas of the migration pact which came through, which we opted into and did not opt into as yet. In these amended regulations, when we talk about safe countries and so forth, can the Minister confirm that this does not include the instance, which I think was set out previously, as one of the aspects of the migration pact which we did not opt into? I think it was the correct …

No, it was a question whereby there are other member states-----

-----there is the state of origin and then there was an optional provision from the European Union, which looked to countries with which the European Union has an arrangement. It is effectively the El Salvador or Rwanda amendment whereby persons are being potentially deported to countries with which they have no meaningful connection but with which the EU has an arrangement. When we previously transposed other aspects of the migration pact, that aspect was not. I ask the Minister to please confirm whether in terms …

Exactly. That is what I wanted to reconfirm. I thank the Minister.

My apologies but I do need clarity. Previously, a number of sections came through. We opted into, I think, four out of five or three out of four. I am trying to recall it at a certain point. There was one that we did not opt into. Is the Minister saying we did opt into that one, which allows for a person to be deported to a third safe country?

A returns hub.