I move amendment No. 4: In page 16, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Assessment of Common Travel Area impacts 2. (1) The Government shall prepare and publish an assessment of the potential and actual impacts on the Common Travel Area arising from the operation of this Act. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) shall include— (a) analysis of any implications for the movement of persons between the State and Great Britain, (b) consideration of the effect of international protection procedures on CT…

On point of clarification, is the correct placement of the wording of the amendment between lines 34 and 35 on page 16?

It seems to be out of kilter.

It will be the first definition in terms of interpretation.

I understand and I thank the Minister. This goes back to a point I made earlier. I have no objection to the amendment in itself but I ask the Minister for a little bit more clarification on the rationale as to why it is required and why it was not in the original Bill. What are the aspects of the Bill in which the term "absconding" is used and for which this definition is needed? Will the Minister provide a little bit of clarification on these points?

Everyone will accept that if we are going to have "absconding" in legislation, then we need to have a definition for it. On the point the Minister has raised, it would not matter if any political party wanted to have checks along the Border. As Theresa May and Boris Johnson found out, it is just not physically possible to do so with 300 Border crossings. Certainly, it would not be practical. That is why we have said very clearly that we need to advance towards Irish unity and deal with these issues on an all-Irelan…

We have consistently asked that the Minister would prioritise the issue of a bilateral arrangement. Without going through all the critiques of how he has approached the Bill and the huge amount of resources that are being put into bringing us into a EU framework when, by the Minister's admission and according to the statements of a significant number of Ministers, a large proportion of people who seek international protection-----

It is in respect of the definition of "absconding". Ministers have stated repeatedly the figure is in excess of 80%. Figures of 80%, 85%, 90% and 90%-plus have been cited by different Ministers who have said the people seeking international protection are coming via the common travel area. I asked the previous Minister. Maybe this Minister can answer. What is the proportion? I suspect he does not know and therefore I suggest he stop bandying around figures. However, most people would accept a majority of those seek…

-----the inaction of the EU migration and asylum pact. That point has been repeatedly missed by Government.

I do not know why the Minister is being entirely disingenuous. He knows what Sinn Féin's position is. We want to get rid of the Border in our country. We want a unitary state and we have repeatedly said for those who want to manage the migration system, that is the single biggest step we could take to have the capacity of being able to do that. In terms of a bilateral arrangement with Britain, it means we would have the ability on the island of Ireland to actually be able to ensure we know who is coming in and who …

I move amendment No. 7: In page 20, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “ “legal counselling” means oral or written legal advice from a practising solicitor or barrister, or a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation;”. I am surprised the amendment was necessary. I know there are other amendments. I am not sure if or why this was not grouped because throughout the PLS process-----

No, I know. I am surprised it is not because there are other proposals for definitions. The Minister would have read the pre-legislative scrutiny report by the committee and throughout that process, it was repeatedly flagged that the term "legal counselling" appears several times in the legislation but there is insufficient definition. Many of those who gave expert testimony to the committee raised the fear of risks of creating uncertainty as to what level of legal assistance international protection applicants wou…

The Minister has indicated that he is going to bring forward a definition of "legal counselling", but I have to say I have no sense from what he has said of what that definition will mean. He mentioned amendment No. 8 and the language in the directive. If it was as simple as taking the definition in its entirety, I presume it would be in place by now. To be clear, the amendment before us, amendment No. 7, does not limit legal counselling to legal advice from a practising solicitor. It also refers to "a person emplo…

Will the Minister repeat that last piece?

It is actually farcical when you think about it. The Minister has dismissed all our criticisms about the rushed nature of this, the lack of scrutiny of this legislation and the absolute fallacy of signing up to an EU asylum migration pact. Regardless of the merits of signing up, the whole purpose of Protocol 21 is actually a benefit Ireland had whereby we can sign up and opt in at any stage. If we decide not to opt in, we could opt in at a later stage, but no. Because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael had to be shown to be…

Sinn Féin will be supporting amendment No. 10. I just want to speak to amendments Nos. 17, 20, 134, 154, 192 and 206, which are in my name and which set out very clearly in a number of different provisions within the Bill that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in the carrying out of any procedures. This is really important for a number of reasons. Children are clearly very vulnerable in many aspects. There is a whole raft of areas of concern about how children are treated in the inte…

Can I get clarification as to why amendment No. 11 was ruled out of order?

The Ceann Comhairle mentioned the rationale for amendment No. 11 being ruled out of order. It would be appropriate if the Minister of State could give an indication as to how exactly these Houses are to have any faith whatsoever that Tusla will be in a position to carry out the obligations that are placed on it as a result of the measures in the Bill. I take it from the Ceann Comhairle's guidance that the part of the amendment that precluded it from being taken is subsection (3) which indicates that the Act cannot …

May I follow up on that? Will the Minister of State put detail on that? How many new staff are going to be allocated to Tusla in order to fulfil the responsibilities being assigned to it? How many staffing posts are vacant within Tusla and how is the gap actually going to be filled? When the Minister of State talks about-----

I am talking to the section.