2026-04-15

Before we start the debate on the amendments on the cream list, I draw attention to four errors of a formal or typographical nature that have been identified in the Bill following its passage through the Houses. Pursuant to Standing Order 203, I ask that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle direct the Clerk to make the following corrections of a formal nature to the Bill. I will set out those four minor changes. First, in respect of section 117 of the Bill version as passed by Dáil Éireann, in page 97, line 30, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert a missing comma between the words "State" and "without". Second, in respect of Seanad amendment No. 104 in subsection (1) of the inserted section 110, I request that the Clerk be directed to insert the word "in" between the words "referred to" and "section 109", so that it will now read as "referred to in section 109". Third, in respect of Seanad amendment No. 111 in paragraph (f) of the inserted section 117, the cross-reference to "paragraph (a)" should read as "paragraph (d)". I request that the Clerk be directed to correct this erroneous reference. Finally, in respect of Seanad amendment No. 258 contained on the first substitute list of amendments dated 14 April 2026, in paragraph (a) clause (ii) the cross-reference in the inserted paragraph (b) to "section 144(e)" of the Bill should read as "section 144(1)(e)". I request that the Clerk be directed to insert this missing reference to subsection (1).

Pursuant to Standing Order 203, I hereby direct the Clerk to incorporate the four corrections requested.

I propose that amendments Nos. 1, 6 to 8, inclusive, 18 to 20, inclusive, 22, 23, 117, 141 to 145, inclusive, 147 and 148 be taken together. Those amendments relate to the introduction of legal counselling for applicants for international protection as is required by the Asylum Procedures Regulation and the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation. A key factor in creating a more effective international protection system is ensuring that from the earliest stages of the process applicants are sufficiently informed about asylum procedures and their rights and obligations. The Bill will achieve this through the delivery of legal counselling. Legal counselling is the provision of information, guidance or assistance to applicants on matters related to the application procedure. This will help applicants to be informed about legal issues that may arise in the course of the procedure and ensure they know what to expect during the process. Legal counselling is not a replacement for legal advice or legal representation, which applicants may still choose to avail of just as they can under the existing system. I have brought forward amendments to provide for legal counselling on Committee Stage in the Seanad following extensive consultation with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Office of the Attorney General and the Legal Aid Board. The definition of legal counselling will ensure that legal counselling will be provided in line with the regulations of the European Union while not being limited to only being provided by a solicitor or barrister. The Legal Aid Board shall appoint persons that it considers to be sufficiently knowledgeable and experienced in asylum procedures to deliver legal counselling. The definition for legal counselling I have provided will enhance the effectiveness of the system of legal assistance we currently have in place without disturbing it, and it ensures that procedures under the Asylum Procedures Regulation and the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation are fully accounted for. I also state that the pact already provides that legal counselling is to be provided free of charge. Amendment No. 23 will introduce a new section establishing an applicant’s right to consult legal representatives. 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 and Migration Management Regulation 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.

I will make a couple of broad remarks that I think have been emphasised by the fact that at this Stage, the last Stage in the Oireachtas, the Minister has to bring forward further, albeit technical, changes to this legislation. The Minister's entire approach to this legislation has verged on the reckless. It is absolutely reckless in terms of his refusal to allow proper scrutiny of a piece of legislation that he has described as the most comprehensive legislation dealing with migration in decades. The approach has been guided not by what is in the best interests of the Irish people or delivering an international protection system that works and resolves the dysfunction that the parties of Government have created, but has been directed solely and entirely by the need to live up to the provisions of the EU migration and asylum pact. This is a pact which Sinn Féin told the Government there was no need to sign up to and which undermines Irish sovereignty and our ability to manage our migration system. It is a pact that takes no account of the unique circumstances of this nation, which is a nation divided, with one part within the European Union's structures and the other part operating outside them. It is a pact that takes no account of the fact that we operate within a common travel area with a state that is not part of the EU framework or part of the pact. In its efforts to through bull a Bill with the sole intention of adhering to the terms of the EU pact, the Government has been absolutely haphazard in its approach. It has undermined the role of Oireachtas at every turn. I will remind the House of that approach. The first stage was the heads of the Bill being brought before the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. In an effort to try to facilitate the Department with what is comprehensive legislation, the committee tried to deal with it as quickly as possible. The testimony and written submissions of all the witnesses may have come from different perspectives, but they all agreed that the Government’s approach was shambolic, that the heads of the Bill were incomplete and that this would not allow proper scrutiny to take place. The pre-legislative scrutiny report agreed across party lines set out very clearly that the decision of the Government to tie us in, lock, stock and barrel, to the EU migration and asylum pact was completely wrong, called on the Government parties to try to reconsider and set out very clearly that the gaps in the heads of the Bill meant it was not possible to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government ignored all of that and brought forward a comprehensive 200-page Bill. Before the Dáil had even finished the Second Stage debate, the deadline for amendments had already passed. As a result, Second Stage counted for nothing. It did not matter what any Member of this House contributed to that debate, including, perhaps, inspiring amendments from either the Government or the Opposition. It was all just a box-ticking exercise. The list of proposed Committee Stage amendments was as comprehensive as you will see, but the Government guillotined the debate and refused to allow the amendments to be discussed and analysed in the place where they should have been, which is the committee rooms of these Houses. The Government guillotined and curtailed the debate on the legislation. This was despite the fact most of the amendments to the Bill, which had just gone through Second Stage, were put forward by the Minister. Despite there being numerous important amendments that this House should have had the opportunity to discuss, the Minister refused to allow that to happen and, indeed, criticised Members of this House for spending too long, as he saw it, discussing some amendments. Those amendments, if I may remind the Minister, related to community engagement, community impact assessment and to the gross profiteering taking place within the international protection and accommodation system and the obscene amount of being spent on that accommodation. Last year alone, €1.3 billion, for which there is no transparency or accountability, was spent on IPAS accommodation. There were amendments to address the failings of the legislation and the EU pact and to address the glaring black hole that is the common travel area and its implications for the Bill. The Minister criticised Members for spending time discussing those amendments when it was he who refused to allow them be debated in committee, and he then imposed a guillotine. The Bill then went to the Seanad. It is now back here for a debate that will last just three hours. What has the Minister brought forward? There are 90 pages of amendments. Who are they from? Some 267 of them have been tabled by the Minister. This is the final part of the debate on the Bill. Once again, rather than detailed scrutiny, that debate is to be limited to three hours. That is absolutely disgraceful. The Minister has brought forward technical amendments, but there is no way the public can be confident that there are not other gaps in the legislation. The difficulty is that after today, the next gap or gaps - and they will probably be glaring gaps - will be identified not by an elected representative of the people but by a judge in the High Court. I have predicted on every Stage that this legislation and the Minister’s approach to it are going to result in High Court cases. I believe some of them will be successful. There is no way anybody can say that there has been proper democratic scrutiny of this legislation because the Government has prevented it. Ultimately, this will result in infringement proceedings at European Commission level because the Minister has included provisions in this legislation that he has no ability to deliver. There is no confidence regarding the time it takes to process applications and to do so fairly. All the evidence in this regard points to a dysfunction that is embedded in the IPAS system. There is not a chance that anybody can have confidence in decisions being enforced. As for any prospect that the matter of the obscene sums of money that have been spent and, I would argue, wasted as a result of the Government's mismanagement will be addressed, nobody can have confidence that this will happen because it has refused, time and again, to put in place mechanisms that will allow transparency in the form of the publication of IPAS contracts and to allow communities to have a real say in what happens. Something incredibly interesting from the past couple of weeks was seeing Simon Harris - he was actually having a go at the Minister - saying communities should have a say in what happens in their areas in the context of IPAS centres. He voted against amendments to that effect in this House just a number of weeks ago, but the good news is that, if we get to it, there is an amendment today that will allow that very provision. What he says is his affair, but it might be just another case of Simon says one thing and Simon does the exact opposite.

Address the amendments, Deputy.

This is verging on a charade. There has been no democratic scrutiny of this Bill. It is the Minister’s Bill and his alone. He has been locked into a position by the previous Government to sign us up to a pact with no consideration whatsoever for its implications. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael signed us up to the EU migration and asylum pact not because they thought it would lead to a more efficient system or resolve the dysfunction in the system but simply so they could say in advance of a general election they were doing something about migration when they are doing absolutely nothing. The Minister has concentrated his entire Department’s resources on a single Bill. He is forcing staff and officials to rush from one Stage to another. On every Stage, the legislation has required substantive change. The difficulty is that after today, whatever changes are going to be made will not by made by representatives acting on behalf of the Irish people but by officials within the European Commission or by a High Court judge. I wanted to put those things on record because it is crucially important and the public deserves to know the Government is adopting the exact same shambolic approach to the international protection legislation as it has to the international protection system. That system has led to serious disquiet and division within communities and enriched a very small number of people at the expense of those who are seeking international protection and the communities affected by decisions made by this Government.

This Bill has the potential to not only be a disaster but to be a disaster in a way that impacts the lives of people in this State who are very vulnerable. I want to make it clear right from the off that when this fails - and I have no doubt it is going to fail - it will be the Minister's failure and his alone. This is without question some of the most important legislation we will deal with in this Dáil term, but from the very first moment the Minister has behaved in a way that was dismissive of the justice committee and has been extraordinarily vague about some of the most important aspects of the Bill. During pre-legislative scrutiny, I sat aghast while NGOs and legal bodies talked about the omissions from the Bill. On Second Stage, we tried to make it somewhat better but the Minister brought it into the Dáil rather than give proper select committee scrutiny of it. He knew that the implications of doing so were that we would not get to discuss all the gaps or all the amendments. I had more than 100 amendments and I think we got to two of them. That is grossly insulting to the process and to the importance of the issue. There was a point where we could have had a really engaging and constructive debate on this in the Chamber. Deputy Carthy would probably disagree on a lot in terms of our approach to this area but what we will agree on fundamentally is that this was an incredibly undemocratic way to approach such important legislation. The Minister has tabled 90 amendments in a three-hour debate. In the Minister's estimation, how many of these amendments does he think we will get to and that are worthy of being scrutinised? The people elected us to assess laws and carry out proper scrutiny but, once again, on this Stage, when the Bill has come back from the Seanad, there are 90 amendments and three hours for debate knowing full well we will never get to discuss them. Even if we talk about legal counselling, which the Minister brought up in the first amendment, it is still incredibly watery and vague and mostly undefined. There is no clarity on standards, on who will deliver it or on accountability. This has been raised time and again. In the Seanad, Senator Patricia Stephenson set a very basic and reasonable standard, in that legal counselling should be delivered by a qualified legal professional, individually and in-person and, crucially, that it was not to be a substitute for legal representation. These amendments were the bare minimum but we are still struggling. There are factors such as family reunification. Refugee family reunification is genuinely one of the cruellest aspects of these measures. In all of the time we have had to discuss this Bill in the Dáil, we have never gotten around to discussing an amendment relating to this or the policy itself because there has been so little time. I heard the Minister speaking in the media and he talked about the fact we had three different sessions and everybody had an opportunity to contribute but he knew full well that was not the case. There was not proper scrutiny of legislation. This is not a way of doing business and when this fails, it will be the Minister's failure.

The Minister has had a bad oul week and a half. This is bad as well. He will not have to bring in the Army for this one but you never know.

An army of lawyers.

He will have an army of lawyers coming in. I jokingly suggested to the Minister before that he may prove to be the Manchurian candidate for the legal profession because, I will be honest with him, I do not think there is a hope in hell of this Bill working in the manner in which it has been presented. It is deeply confusing at times. Even with the some of current amendments, you could read through them and get a different view of what they mean the more you read them. That is just bad legislation. I have been knocking around here for nearly 20 years and this is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen drafted and it is because of political direction, not because of the people who are doing the drafting. That is on the Minister's head. We will be repeating what we have been saying here in the not too distant future because my colleagues who have spoken before me - I will not stress it again - have said how this has disregarded the democratic process, how we have not gotten through amendments and how the whole way in which this has been brought before the Houses has been a disgrace. That is all true but the ultimate thing is that this is the Minister's legislation and it is on his head. It is bad legislation. It is not going to work. There are so many people who have contacted probably all of us here. They are pointing out that they do not understand many components of this legislation and how they will work them. The Minister cannot say he has not been warned and time will tell whether he will be playing back what the three Deputies here, including myself, have said, that this is not good legislation. This is not the way to treat the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was impossible to scrutinise this and to go through all of its components. Definitions are confusing. The make-up of the Bill itself is even confusing. If we are confused, I do not know where it will go outside. When it comes to the issue of legal counselling, as I said before, my party is not shy of the legal profession either, and the Minister would know many of them. Essentially, they believe, with the amendments coming forward and the definitions, that it is even more confusing now. It is watery. As to where the legal parameters are as regards legal advice and legal counsel, I do not know why it was continued with and why we even bother with legal counsel. Why do we have this makey-uppy thing? We all know how to define legal advice but legal counsel is not defined in a way that it understandable. It is a makey-uppy term and we know the reasons for that but it is not acceptable. It will ensure there are huge legal challenges across the many stages for people who are seeking protection and it will make a lot of money for a lot of people in the Minister's former profession.

I want to thank the three Deputies for their contributions, which I listened to very carefully. At the outset, I wish to say that the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I realise this is extremely challenging and complicated legislation before the Houses. Nothing we can do can remove the complicated nature of the legislation. It just is the case that with the international protection system, the asylum system, that is operating not just in Ireland or in other EU countries but throughout the world where many asylum applicants come from, there is an enormously complicated legal system in place for the purpose of dealing with those asylum applications. Part of the reason for that is that we are dealing with the rights of individuals and we want to try to ensure there is fairness for individuals who have applied for international protection and asylum. At the same time, we have to ensure there is balance as well in protecting the interests of the state that is receiving those applicants. We know from the international protection system we operate at present under the 2015 legislation that it is also extremely complicated legislation. It is not anywhere near as lengthy as this but the reason this legislation is lengthy is that we are trying to consolidate in one piece of legislation how Ireland will respond to people who come to make an application here for international protection. One of the reasons the Bill is very lengthy is that we have decided to include within the legislation, for instance, the reception conditions directive and the requirements that are on Ireland as a State when a person comes into Ireland claiming asylum. Previously, that was dealt with through secondary legislation. It was not debated in the House; it was just a statutory instrument that was signed by the Minister. I could have done that again but I believed it was more appropriate to have it within the main body of the primary legislation. I do appreciate the complexity, length and detail of the legislation and it is challenging for all of us. It is challenging for the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, for me and for officials in my Department and I appreciate it is challenging for Opposition Deputies. I do not say this in a patronising way but I commend the diligence of the three Deputies from the Opposition who have been here all of the time as the legislation has gone through the House. Deputy Carthy stated at the outset that the fact I am bringing forward technical changes at this final stage is an example of the recklessness and flawed nature of the legislation. I think that is excessive, and I do listen to what Deputy Carthy has to say. Remember this Bill is around 270 pages long and has over 313 sections. The four technical changes I am making are as follows: first, I am putting in a comma; second, I am inserting the word "in"; third, I am changing the letter "a" to "d"; and finally, I am inserting the number "1" after section 144. I do not think that is reckless. I will not go back to them but Deputy Carthy mentioned issues about the pact. I have set out my views in respect of that before. No matter whether we are in the EU migration pact or not, we still have to deal with individuals coming into Ireland who claim asylum. We saw that the UK decided to get out not just of the pact but out of the EU and its issues in respect of international protection have not in any way been reduced. However, we did - I commended the Deputy and the other Members here before - have a very thorough pre-legislative scrutiny process. We had a Second Stage debate here that went on over three days. I accept that the Committee Stage hearings were truncated because they were held on the floor of the House as opposed to the committee room. I am not asking the Deputies to agree with this but everyone in this House knows that if it had gone to Committee Stage in the committee room, it would have taken weeks if not months to get through. We can discuss important issues that are dealt with in the amendments. For instance, the amendment we are talking about now concerns legal counselling. All three Deputies said that this would end up in the courts. As sure as night follows day, it is going to end up in the courts. There is no doubt about that but the success or effectiveness of a piece of legislation is not measured by whether it ends up in the courts. The reason it will end up in the courts is this is a highly litigious area and it is new legislation. When there is legislation of this complexity and length, Deputy Kelly is right - lawyers will be parsing it to see if there are any inconsistencies or failings. If the test was not to introduce legislation if it was going to be brought before the courts, we would do nothing in this House.

No. You have to play the percentages.

The current legislation is much shorter. In fact, I think Deputy Kelly was in government when the International Protection Act 2015 was enacted. If one looks at the judgments of the superior courts, there are endless judgments on the international protection system that operates in Ireland at present - people challenging it by way of judicial review and challenging the executive operation of it. It is a very litigious area because of the large number of people coming in and the very high proportion of refusals. There would not be any legal challenges if nobody was refused. There is a high level of refusals and because of that, people challenge it. On legal counselling, I am conscious people may say it is inappropriate that legal counselling is not provided by qualified solicitors or barristers. I disagree. There are very many people able to provide legal counselling in respect of the procedures that apply in an area in which they have expertise. I believe this is one of them. If one looks at the definition set out in a later amendment, No. 7, there is a very clear definition of what legal counselling is. It means "any guidance, information or assistance given to an applicant on matters relating to the application procedure by a person appointed under" the legislation. It sets out that it will be guidance on the procedure and assistance with the lodging of an application, guidance on the different procedures, rules relating to admissibility, legal issues arising in the course of the procedure, guidance on and explanation of the criteria and procedure for determining the member state responsible, and issues such as that. That will be provided through Legal Aid Board. If they are not qualified solicitors or barristers, they will be very well trained paralegals who will be able to provide that assistance. That is something we provide to people bringing applications and as it gets to people appealing, there is an obligation to provide more by way of legal services. I recall we had a lengthy debate on Second Stage about legal counselling. Deputy Gannon understandably asked what it was about and where the term "legal counselling" came from. I have now set out a definition. It is a good definition of how information and counselling can be provided in circumstances where applications are being made. In many instances, although it is an area of great complexity in the law, the process of applying for asylum is relatively straightforward. A person has to recount the reasons they are fleeing persecution or war and why Ireland should provide them with asylum. Those are the basic tenets of it. One does not need to be an extraordinarily qualified lawyer to explain that to the individual or to advise them of the procedures.

Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 9, 21, 28, 224, 230 and 260 are related and will be discussed together.

What we are doing here is putting in a definition of the Data Protection Act 2018. As I indicated, some of these are very minor technical amendments. The main amendment in this group is amendment No. 230, which proposes the insertion of a new section 224 to provide for the sharing of information by relevant bodies. The purpose of the new section is to make clear provision for the sharing of information, including personal data by public bodies for the purpose of carrying out functions under this Bill. Provision is made for necessary safeguards. Information may be shared under the new section only to the extent that it is necessarily and proportionate and subject to suitable and specific measures being taken to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in processing the personal data. Where information is shared under the new section, the relevant body with which it is shared may only use the information for the purpose of the performance by it of its functions and only to the extent necessary and proportionate for that purpose. The proposed new section will enable the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to make regulations in relation to information sharing for the purposes of this Bill. Relevant principles and policies to govern the exercise of the regulation-making power are included. The Minister will be required to have regard to the need to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects and to specify suitable and specific measures to safeguard these fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in the sharing of personal data. Relevant bodies will be permitted to enter into data sharing agreements subject to safeguards corresponding to those in the Data Sharing and Governance Act 2019. The sharing of personal data relating to applicants for international protection and beneficiaries of temporary protection is governed by a number of existing enactments. It is clearly stated that this new section is not intended to affect the operation of other enactments that permit or require data collection or data sharing. The other amendments in this group are consequential on amendment No. 230. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure consistency in the references in the Bill to the Data Protection Act 2018 and the general data protection regulation. These amendments also clarify the definitions of information and data as used in the Bill.

I call Deputy Gannon.

This might be the last time the Minister answers the question here. One of the problems I have with the Bill in its totality is the fact the Minister has accepted and said previously that some 90% or more of people who claim asylum here come through the common travel area. In a scenario where somebody is coming through the common travel area, that person does not tell us where the first nation he or she is fleeing from is. What information would be used to establish where that person may have come from previously if he or she came through the common travel area but has not given any other information beyond that? That is particularly relevant when it comes to detention. How would the Minister establish where that person came from, if he or she came through the common travel area, and how would that work for the purpose of detention?

I thank the Deputy very much for his question. Obviously, in the first instance, when people arrive into Ireland claiming international protection, they are checked on Eurodac and they are screened. In respect of those processes, they are required to give biometric data. They get their fingerprints taken, they get their faces photographed and other information is taken in respect of them. They set out where they have come from. That is their objective. They have to say where they have come from. They have to set out the narrative of which country they came from but also in terms of the countries through which they travelled. The advantage of having Eurodac is that it will provide us with information as to whether or not an applicant was, in fact, in another EU country. The UK does not have access to Eurodac. It is not on it, although it is very interested and keen to gain access to it. However, there is going to be the sharing of some information with the UK and, in many instances, we will be able to identify whether the person has come from the UK. If a person comes from the UK, it can be the case that we determine his or her application to be inadmissible but there is a process in that to determine the inadmissibility of it. Then, even if we do determine inadmissibility, there is the issue about trying to return the individual. However, the way we would get the information is through asking the person the question, and we assume that the information we are going to be given is accurate and honest. The systems we also have access to include Eurodac. There are other systems as well that will provide information in respect to the individuals that will give us an indication as to the pathway of their journey through Europe.

In respect of the amendments regarding the Data Protection Act, of course, it is imperative that the full information in terms of decision-making in respect of individuals applying for international protection is known to the Department and that there is the ability to fully appraise the history insofar as it matters for an application of the applicant. As the Minister knows, that is why I have supported signing up to the Eurodac regulation. In that sense and in that instance, it makes sense that we would have the ability to share information with other EU states. The Minister has highlighted a glaring deficiency, in that, as Deputy Gannon has said, it is broadly accepted that the majority of IPAS applicants at this stage probably come through the common travel area. However, we cannot say with any certainty in what proportion. As I say, the Minister's analysis assumes that everybody who does not claim international protection at one of our ports or airports must have come through the common travel area. There is a fundamental flaw with that. International evidence suggests that a portion - which varies, and sometimes the variations can be quite big - of international protection applicants who arrive to the State with a valid visa but for another reason, in the first instance, subsequently claim international protection, as is their right under international law. It is nonsensical and hard to believe that the Minister's Department does not compile information on the numbers of people who enter the State visa-free or with short-term travel visas, student permits or employment permits. We need that information. If we are talking about having a managed migration system, we need to understand all of that. The Minister seems to be indicating he has that information but he will not share it with me. I have asked him plenty of times by way of parliamentary questions. His Department tells me that the information is not available and, while it is compiled on individual applications, it is not collated.

I ask the Deputy to stick to the amendment.

I am. This is in respect of data. There are a number of amendments there. If the Ceann Comhairle wants to go through them all, she can figure it out while I ramble on. I was coming to an end anyway. Of course, none of us, nor the public, need to know personal information, but the Department needs to have it comprehensively. In terms of general information and data, the Government needs to be much better at sharing it with the public. The Minister made a statement. He or his predecessor said that 90% of applicants were coming through the common travel area. Will he acknowledge that there is no way he can say that unless he has the information that I sought and that his Department told me does not exist. Is the Minister going to ensure that information is going to be collated and published, and, if so, when?

The Deputies have accurately summarised the basis on which we think that 90% of applicants come in over the Border with Northern Ireland. These are people who apply at the office and do not apply at our ports. It is, therefore, a reasonable assumption that a significant majority are coming over the Border. Deputy Carthy makes the point that individuals who were given work visas to come here might then subsequently claim international protection. That is correct. It is important to point out, obviously, that the State has that information about an individual. If an individual came to Ireland on a student application or visa application and was granted that visa and then when it came to an end, the person were to claim international protection, the persons in the IPO determining the decision would be aware that, previously, he or she was granted a visa and came here to study or work, and will see the narrative of the basis upon which the application for that visa was granted. That information is available. It is important that we retain that information on an individual basis. We can try to accurately specify the exact numbers coming in over the Border. However, as Deputy Carthy knows, the only way we are going to be able to do that is by checking people at the Border. I know he does not want that to happen. The only way this State is going to know how many people are coming from Northern Ireland into the Republic and claiming asylum is by stopping people and checking and by asking to see their passports. If they are Irish citizens, there is no issue. We could get information that way but no one in this House wants that. It is a consequence of partition. The way we resolve it is to say that the UK, including Northern Ireland, which is a part of it, is a safe third country. When this legislation is enacted, I will, based on the information I have already and that will be presented to me, I assume, be designating the UK as a safe third country. That is the procedural mechanism by which we seek to deal with the numbers coming over the Border.

As it relates to the amendment relating to sharing data, if a person flies from his or her home country outside the EU straight to the UK and then arrives here through the common travel area, he or she is not going to feature in any Eurodac database. What information would potentially be shared with the UK and under what regulation or law would that be done as it pertains to this legislation?

To fly from a country outside the EU into the UK, you would need a visa to enter the UK. If you are coming, say, from an Asian or African country, where there are a lot of international protection applicants, in general, you will need a visa. There are some countries for which the UK provides lots of visas. You can see that in our numbers. I am not going to start naming countries now because people will say I am picking on one country, but there are certain countries to which the UK readily gives out visas. The numbers of people from those countries applying for international protection in Ireland are quite high and we believe there is a correlation in respect of that. To answer the Deputy's question, there is a lot of co-operation between the Home Office and the Department of Justice. They have access to some information in respect of EU applications, but the Deputy's question was about somebody who does not initially go near the EU but goes from a country outside the EU into the UK and then across the Border. If somebody comes down here and indicates that he or she has come from the UK, there is a mechanism for us to apply to the UK to find out information about that person. There is sharing of information.

The Minister is missing the point I was making about the collation of data. On one hand, he is saying that when applicants make an application and give their background and history, we take them at face value. The initial assumption is that they are telling the truth. On the other hand, he is saying that we cannot know unless there is control on the Border. The point I am making is that if we are to have a properly managed migration system, which I think everyone agrees we need even if they disagree about what it might look like, it means that in respect of international protection, it is important that to the best of the State's ability we get the personal information that is required to process the applications and the general information and statistical data to inform public policy. Therefore, it is, insofar as it is possible, important to know what states people have come from and what states they have transited through, and then the issues in respect of returns regulations and safe third countries can apply. It is equally important that we would have the information in respect of other mechanisms by which people apply for international protection. As I say, I have submitted quite a number of parliamentary questions. I have, as one must when one is dealing with the Minister's Department, tried rewording things in 15 different ways before the Department answers the question that it knew was being asked in the first place.

Hear, hear.

I also made a freedom of information, FOI, application after I asked those 15 or 20 different parliamentary questions. I got a response yesterday to my request for the number of IP applicants who had transited through another mechanism. The reply to the freedom of information request stated the Department does not have that information and that it would be too burdensome to collate it. Is that the truth? Does the Minister have the information on the number of IP applicants who previously came on other types of visas?

I do not think that information is relevant to the amendment.

It absolutely is. If we are talking about-----

We are not asking for that today.

This is not the first time I have asked for the information.

I appreciate that, but this is not the place to ask. We are speaking to the amendments.

I know, but-----

I appreciate the Deputy did not get an answer.

-----we are not going to get to all the amendments because the Minister has guillotined this Stage, as he has all other Stages. I am asking this at this point. I would like clarification. Does the Minister agree that information would be helpful for guiding public policy and, if so, will he ensure it is collated and published?

I will deal with something Deputy Carthy said at the outset. He said we take at face value what applicants say. I am conscious that could be misrepresented. It is not correct. What people put down on their forms is part of the information processing, but we do not just accept, because they say they have come from Syria and are fleeing persecution, that they are fleeing persecution. The whole process is to probe that. It is important to say we do not take at face value what they say and accept it; it is tested. However, a lot of the information we rely upon and interrogate is provided by the applicant. On the issue Deputy Carthy raised about whether we should be collating information to try to find out how many Irish visa holders claimed international protection, we know the general scheme. The general assessment is that it is about 90%. We know that a significant majority of people claiming international protection-----

How do you know?

We know because there is a lot of information in the Department and for a wide variety of reasons. We know individually. If people have a visa application in Ireland, when they apply for international protection we will know they had a visa previously. We have access to the information, but what Deputy Carthy is asking us to do is to set up a process of collating all that information. There is a huge amount of work going on and we have to be selective about which information we collate. Let us imagine I issue an instruction for that information to be collated and we get it. It will tell us that a significant majority of people are coming in over the border. We know that. I need to deal with that as opposed to trying to confirm what we know already.

On that point, the Minister said we know it is 90%. We do not know that. I accept that it is probably the case that a large proportion, if not a majority and perhaps even a substantial majority, of people who claim international protection come via the common travel area. It is one of the reasons we tabled amendments in respect of the common travel area, which the Minister rejected. I have been rightly critical - and will be vindicated as such - of the fact that the Minister is prioritising this legislation rather than pursuing a bilateral agreement with Britain. However, we need to know exactly, percentage-wise, year-on-year, because that is how public policy is decided and developed. Likewise - and I hope I am not too far out because I am trying to think from memory - my understanding is that in one year in Britain, for example, it transpired after analysis that 3% of international protection applicants had previously entered the British state with an education visa. That allowed its Parliament to examine the education visa system to ensure it was robust and could not be used as a back door to bypass employment visa regulations or the international protection system. The Minister says we know whether people originally came on an education, employment or tourism visa, but the fact he will not collate that makes it more difficult for the Houses of the Oireachtas to analyse whether there are areas in public policy that need to be addressed to ensure we have a migration system that is fit for purpose. It is one of the very many areas in which the lack of information and due diligence on the part of the Minister's Department means that public discourse takes place in a vacuum. People can go on Facebook and say that 80% of people who come as tourists from a particular state subsequently seek international protection and no Member of this House can say with certainty that it is downright false because we do not have the information because the Minister's Department will not publish it. I ask again. Will the Minister ensure his Department collates that type of information and publishes it to Members of this House so we can be better guided in public policy discourse?

Is Deputy Gannon speaking on the same point?

No.

Would the Minister like to answer that? No, go ahead Deputy Gannon.

Do we have data for how many people arrive and claim asylum here, presumably from the common travel area, who do not feature in the Eurodac database? Presumably we at least have that information. This will become quite important when it comes to which data we share with the UK. The Minister said a few minutes ago that he will soon legislate to make the UK a safe third country. I appreciate he can legislate all he wants for that, but the UK has been explicit that it will not take returns of migrants or refugees. That will create a significant lacuna in the law which I worry about the consequence of because, we will get to it shortly, but we are legislating for detention here also and detention of minors, so that will create a real gap in the law that none of this is addressing.

I thought one thing Deputy Carthy and I agreed on was that the overwhelming majority of people who claim asylum in the Republic come through the common travel area. I thought we agreed on that. Yes, we do not have the exact specifics on it-----

But I want the exact specifics and the Minister should as well.

I thought we agreed on it. Is he now saying that is not correct, that it is not the case that the majority of people come through the common travel area? We strongly believe it is. We do not have the data he is talking about collating. I will talk to senior officials in the Department about it but I suspect it will be a huge amount of effort to collate information which ultimately will not have a huge impact on public policy because it will not undermine the fact that the significant majority of people - probably more than 85% to 90% - come through the UK. This leads me on to Deputy Gannon's question. If he looks at the nationalities of the people coming to Ireland - each week I publish details of the numbers of people coming in - they are coming predominantly from four or five countries which are consistently near the top. I will not name them here again. In assessing those applications, work is done to determine whether they are from people who previously had visas granted to them by the UK. Many of them do not appear to be people who were granted visas because we know the nationalities. There is one exception. There is one country, where the UK hands out a lot of visas to people from those countries for study and that may have an impact. They may be coming here as a result, but for the other main countries it is not usual for the UK to give out large numbers of visas in respect of them. On what Deputy Gannon said about returns, the point he emphasised emphasises to me the need for Ireland to be part of a returns regulation that at present is the subject of a proposal by the Commission. It is important that we have a mechanism to deal with individuals who have claimed asylum and have been adjudicated not to be entitled to it. That is a problem no matter what we do. For it to work efficiently - and it does not at present - there must be a returns process as provided for under the Dublin III regulation. Every European country says that Dublin III does not work. That is why work is ongoing in the Commission to put in place an effective returns regulation.

I know the Minister does not listen to me, but------

I do listen

-----I would love for him to listen to himself sometimes, because he has just set out a paradox in terms of his position. He said his Department publishes the nationalities of people seeking international protection on a weekly basis and, on the other hand, he said it would be too burdensome for his Department to collate and publish their origin in terms of visa route. The information would be in exactly the same place. It would be in the application that was made. When people make an application, they state whether they have been in the State on another visa or come through a third country and what the country of origin was. It is just a matter of changing the software so the information is collated. If there is a logical reason - other than it being too much hassle - not to publish this information, the Minister should just say so. This is the problem. With no disrespect to anyone in the Minister's Department, the Irish public does not trust the Department to manage migration. They certainly do not trust it to manage international protection and the more areas the Minister hides from accountability and transparency and the divulging of information, the more it is so. No one wants information about individuals or families; of course not. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about general information to inform public policy. I have said it again. The Minister clearly does not listen to me because I have said about six times during the course of all these debates that I accept it is very likely that a significant proportion of international applicants come through the common travel area. I accept it is probably a majority and potentially a substantial majority. I accept all of those things. However, the truth of the matter is I cannot say that for sure because the Minister will not give me the evidence that would allow someone to say that for sure. I am not the person who points and says figures like 90%, 85% or 80%. It is the Minister for justice and different Government Ministers who repeatedly cite different figures, which is a bit bizarre in itself. The Minister keeps repeating that but will not provide the public with the data. He says, "Oh well, we can deduct that, take A from B and end up with C", which allows us to think this is probably the situation. It just points to the dysfunction. It points to a haphazard approach that has been the hallmark of how this system has been managed and has led to all the public distrust in the system. What I am trying to do is encourage the Minister to change the approach. Get away from the secrecy. Get away from building walls between information and the public and start building trust again in this area.

Does the Minister wish to respond?

I do not wish to respond but I will take it on board. I listened to what Deputy Carthy had to say.

We move now to Seanad amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 3, 10 to 12, inclusive, 15, 24, 57, 61, 124, 125, 149 to 156 inclusive, 171 to 174, inclusive, 203, 204, 207 to 211, inclusive, 220 to 223, inclusive, 225 to 227, inclusive, and 265 to 267, inclusive, are all related and will be discussed together.

They are technical drafting amendments to improve the clarity of the text and correct cross-references and minor errors.

Seanad amendment Nos. 5, 13, 14, 29 to 56, inclusive, 116 and 229 are related and will be discussed together.

Amendment No. 5 defines the phrase "international protection guardian" for the purposes of section 2. Later proposed amendments to the Children First Act 2015 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 will rely on this definition. Amendments No. 13 and 14 are technical amendments that provide for updated cross-references within the Bill. Amendment No. 29 provides for the designation of the competent authority in respect of representatives for unaccompanied minors. Amendment No. 30 is an amendment that clarifies the notification procedure when it comes to the attention of a relevant body that an applicant may be an unaccompanied minor. Amendment No. 31 is a technical amendment. The provision for presumption of minority for the purposes of the Child Care Act 1991 is no longer necessary due to amendment No. 242, which provides for the amendment of the Child Care Act 1991 to insert a provision for a presumption of minority. Therefore, the current section 42(5) is no longer necessary. Amendments Nos. 32, 34 and 36 are technical amendments related to the improved layout of the chapter. The text proposed to be deleted is now provided for more coherently as a part of the revised section 47 set out in amendment No. 44. Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 are technical drafting amendments to improve the clarity of the text. Amendment No. 37 recognises section 44 to clarify the procedure for representative organisations to appoint provisional representatives and representatives. Amendments Nos. 38 to 41, inclusive, is a technical amendment which adds clarity to section 44. Amendment No. 42 facilitates the work of representatives by providing them with access to the unaccompanied minors file. Amendment No. 43 is related to amendment No. 42 and facilitates the work of representatives by ensuring they are provided with the decisions and determinations sent to unaccompanied minors. Amendment No. 44 replaces section 47 with a clarified text that more effectively describes the functions of provisional representatives and representatives. The text now emphasises the central function of the representative in safeguarding the best interest and well-being of the unaccompanied minors as well as setting out the case load, independence and training requirements to be applied.

Seanad amendments Nos. 16, 17, 59, 62, 90, 91, 101 to 115, inclusive, and 158 are related and will be discussed together.

Amendment No. 16 is a technical amendment that repeals section 20 of the International Protection Act 2015 which provides for the detention of applicants in certain limited circumstances. Following the commencement of this Bill, any applicants under that Act who are to be detained will be subject to the detention provisions of this Bill in accordance with the reception conditions directive. Therefore, it is necessary to repeal section 20 of the International Protection Act 2015. Amendment No. 17 seeks to ensure an applicant is fully informed of their obligations to co-operate with a member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer for the purposes of section 23 of the Bill and the consequences for failing to do so. Amendment Nos. 59 and 62 are technical drafting amendments to correct cross-references and improve the clarity of the text. The proposed new Part 5 of the Bill gives effect to the provisions of the reception conditions directive relating to restrictions of freedom of movement, detention and alternatives to detention. Amendment No. 90 describes the categories of applicants to whom the new Part 5 will apply. Amendment No. 91 lists the specific grounds under which an applicant may be considered at risk of absconding. These include the presentation of false or misleading information and failing to co-operate with competent authorities or procedural requirements. The procedural requirements an applicant must adhere to are also listed in this amendment. Regarding Deputy Carthy's amendment to amendment No. 91, I do not propose to accept it. The purpose of this amendment appears to be to require the Minister to lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas, setting out particular relevant statistical information relating to applicants for international protection where the question of the risk of absconding is assessed under the new section. The collection of the type of data the amendment seeks to capture would require scoping by my Department as it is possible not all of this information is currently systemically captured by its IT systems in the manner specified in the amendment. While I cannot accept the amendment, I can inform Deputy Carthy that the International Protection Office publishes monthly statistics on applications for international protection that are publicly available on its website. It is also possible for material to be sought by way of parliamentary question. Amendment No. 101 transposes Article 10.1 of the reception conditions directive and provides the grounds for the prohibition of detention, which includes the fact that an individual is an applicant, or on the basis that he or she is an applicant of a particular nationality. This amendment specifies that detention under Chapter 3 of Part 5 will not be punitive in nature. Amendment No. 102 transposes Article 10.4 of the reception conditions directive, which provides the grounds for the detention of an applicant. These grounds include to determine or verify the identity or nationality of the applicant, to ensure transfer procedures are carried out in accordance with the asylum and migration management regulation and to determine the elements in which the application for international protection is based, which could not be obtained in the absence of a detention, in particular where there is a risk of absconding. Where the grounds under amendment No. 103 apply, an immigration officer or a member of the Garda may apply alternatives to detention following an individual assessment of the applicant. Such requirements can include an obligation to reside at, or attend a specified place, or to report to an immigration officer or member of the Garda at a specified time or at reasonable specified intervals. Amendment No. 104 provides that in exceptional circumstances an immigration officer or a member of An Garda Síochána may make a requirement under amendment No. 103 for a minor who is an applicant. This may occur where the parent or primary care giver of an accompanied minor is the subject of a requirement under amendment No. 103 where such a requirement safeguards the minor or where it has been established that making the requirement of the minor is assessed to be in his or her best interests. Amendment No. 105 outlines that requirements made under amendment No. 103 must be based on an individual assessment to ensure applicants are kept fully informed of any requirements being placed on them. This amendment specifies that this information will be notified to the applicant in writing and will inform him or her of the reasons for this decision. In order to take the changing circumstances of an applicant's situation into account, amendment No. 106 provides that an immigration officer or member of the Garda may vary a requirement under amendment No. 103 where the circumstances relating to the making of the requirement change, and in such other particular circumstances as I may prescribe. To ensure that robust legal remedies are in place for applicants, amendment No. 107 provides that an applicant may avail of an appeals procedure to the District Court in relation to a requirement made under amendment No. 103 while the requirement is in force. Amendment No. 108 provides for the arrest and detention of applicants, with the exception of minors, for as short a time as possible, where it is determined that other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied and where detention is deemed to be necessary. This amendment will provide legal protections for applicants by ensuring they are informed of the reason for their arrest and detention and that they are entitled to seek free legal assistance and legal representation, consult a legal representative and challenge the detention. The grounds for the detention of an applicant will continue to be monitored, and where it is assessed that these grounds no longer apply, be brought before a judge of the District Court who will order the release of the person. Amendment No. 109 provides for a very limited set of circumstances in which a minor may be detained. These are for the purposes of determining or verifying the identity or nationality of the minor where less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively and where detention has been assessed as being in the child's best interests. All of these requirements must be met before a minor can be detained. Minors may only be detained for the shortest possible period and in a place which is appropriate to their needs. Any individual detained under this amendment will be able to seek free legal assistance and legal representation, consult a legal representative and challenge the detention order. I reiterate that this Bill does not permit the routine detention of minors, as has been suggested by some, and this will not become a feature of our international protection system. To ensure the safety of applicants and those responsible for helping them during the international protection process, amendment No. 110 places an obligation on the applicant to ensure that he or she does not endanger his or her safety, or the safety of others, or obstruct or hinder an immigration officer or a member of the Garda for performing their duties under this part of the Bill. Where an applicant is detained under amendment No. 109, amendment No. 111 provides for the rights of the applicant and ensures they are able to avail of effective legal protections under this Bill, including access to legal assistance and legal representation. To ensure that persons with special reception needs are treated with care and consideration during the international protection process, amendment No. 112 provides that such applicants are not placed in detention where this might have serious negative impacts on the physical and mental health. Where applicants assessed as having special reception needs are placed in detention, the health of the applicant will be of primary importance, and robust supports and protections will be provided for them. In the interests of protecting minors during the international protection process, amendment No. 113 provides for the Child and Family Agency to be notified where an applicant is detained under amendment No. 108, and the minor is in the custody of the detained applicant. Amendment No. 114 provides that for the purposes of the grounds of detention under amendment No. 108, any delays in administrative procedures that cannot be attributed to the applicant should not justify a continuation of detention. Amendment No. 115 seeks to ensure that applicants who have been detained under this Part are provided with safe and secure conditions of detention. This includes the need to separate detained applicants from ordinary prisoners and other third country nationals who have not lodged an application for international protection. Provisions also made to allow detained applicants to contact with family members, legal representatives and persons representing relevant NGOs, and for access to open-air space. Finally, amendment No. 158 provides for the insertion of a reference to the new Part 5 of the Bill into section 126, which deals with restrictions and freedom of movement during the asylum border procedure.

I wish to speak to amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 91 in my name. It is important to state very clearly what the Minister is opposing here. This amendment calls on the Minister "to record, and publish in anonymised and aggregate form, annual statistical information on the routes of entry of applicants to whom this section applies, including - (a) the number of applicants presenting at a port or airport, (b) the number presenting inland, (c) the number reporting entry via the Common Travel Area, and (d) the number whose route of entry could not be established, and such information shall be published not later than 31 March each year.”. I still do not think the Government has come to realise just how deep the public's mistrust is in its ability to develop an international protection system that works. There is a flippancy in terms of any discussion of any proposals coming from the Opposition. It is crucially important the public knows how international protection applicants enter the State. It is also crucial, just to repeat the point, what permissions were granted prior to that. It is imperative that we have reliable information on entry routes in order to plan effectively and maintain the public confidence that we have spoken about. We also need to have better information in terms of data with regard to Britain and that is why I repeat that we need to have bilateral arrangements in terms of information sharing, returns and a very clear position on how we deal with our nearest neighbour and the source, as has been acknowledged here, of likely the largest number of international protection applicants. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions. If I was a Minister and I was told there was information available in the Department that does not and could not prejudice, I would be saying to the Department that we needed to wise up here, get this information, pull it together and publish it. It is certainly nothing to do with personal data, and nobody is seeking that, but I am referring to general aggregated data. I know the Government loves commercial sensitivity as a reason not to provide any information in respect of IPAS but it cannot cite international sensitivity here. If, on the off chance, we get to amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 91, I will be pressing it because it is really important. We hear members of the Minister's party and of Fine Gael talking all the time about wanting to have transparency, accountability and a clear process that works and how setting out the EU migration asylum pact allows everybody to understand how the system works. Yet, every single time the Minister is asked to be open with the public, he refuses. Therefore, if I get an opportunity, I will be moving this amendment.

I have a very brief question. Just to confirm, when the Minister says "places of detention", does he mostly mean prisons?

It does generally mean that at present. I have indicated this to the Deputy before - or I do not know if it was him - but he knows this puts pressure on prisons. I have looked before but I am going to have to start trying to identify a secure location where detention takes place but which is exclusively for immigration. That may be something at which I have to look. I am not giving a commitment to it but at present detention under the migration laws is detention within our prisons. What Deputy Carthy wants to achieve in terms of his amendment is for me to publish annual statistical information on the routes of entry. There are four requirements in his amendment. The first relates to the number of applicants presenting at a port or airport. That information is available. You can find out about individuals who have presented at the IPO office and there is sometimes information about people who present at ports or airports. We have that information and I think it is available. The second requirement relates to the number presenting inland. By that, I think the Deputy means the number presenting at the IPO. I assume that is what the term "presenting inland" relates to. Information in this regard is provided already; the statistics that come out show the numbers who apply at the IPO and at the airports and the ports. The third requirement relates to the number reporting entry via the common travel area. In effect, this applies to people who say they have come here from the UK. One would have to ask individuals about that to get that information and collate it. The fourth requirement relates to the number whose route of entry cannot not be established. As I said to Deputy Carthy, the collection of the type of data he is seeking to capture would require inquiry within the Department because it is possible that not all of this information is currently systematically captured by its IT systems in the manner specified in the amendment. I will look at it, but I cannot accept the amendment. I can inform the Deputy that the IPO publishes monthly statistics on applications. There is a huge amount of information contained within those statistics. However, the Deputy is correct that in terms of that primary information, it is guiding in terms of the policy that we have. However, it is overwhelmingly the case that the majority of people coming in and claiming international protection are doing so having come over the Border. The reason I can say that confidently is because if people were coming in through the airports, they would apply at there, as they are obliged to, and if they were coming through the ports, they would have to apply there. Deputy Carthy offered one example whereby people who are in Ireland already on visas could subsequently apply for international protection. I would have thought that would be a small cohort. That may reduce the numbers we can say are coming from Northern Ireland. I will look at it. Ultimately, there is no point in setting up a very complicated IT system for the purpose of telling us something that we know already. However, I will look at it and discuss it within the Department.

When we speak about places of detention, we are speaking about our prisons. The Minister knows, because we have had this conversation countless times, that our prisons are already overwhelmed. We have a scenario where there are people in our prison system who are awaiting deportation. That, in turn, is leading to a scenario where we are adding a burden to a system that is already broken. I appreciate that the Minister said we may have to look at something in the future. I would very much want to be over the scrutiny of that in terms of what type of building it is. Until that point, however, it would be impossible for me to vote in favour of what is proposed in light of what we already know about our prison system. I will be calling a vote.

If we do not have a system that allows us to detain people who are to be deported, we can never have deportation flights. I just have to be realistic about it. We could never have these flights because people are obviously not going to turn up and ask "What time is the flight leaving at?" The realistic situation is that in order to ensure that people can be subject to enforced deportations, you have to detain them in advance. It is not the preferred way of doing it. The numbers in terms of voluntary returns are increasing quite significantly, but we would have a meaningless system if we could not have enforced deportations. In order to have enforced deportations, regrettably, we do need to have detention.

Nobody is disputing that for a second. Given the fact that we have a broken system of incarceration at this moment, however, the number of people being placed there is also adding exponentially to the suffering that is being experienced by the prison population and by people who are in prison are awaiting deportation. Until we have a solution - potentially the one the Minister outlined, although that would require oversight - this is going to place an extra demand on a system that is already broken. This is another aspect of this rushed accommodation. We also have another scenario that I am very concerned about whereby when somebody comes through the common travel area, we cannot establish to where they should be returned while awaiting deportation. You are going to have a person in almost indefinite incarceration awaiting deportation to a place we cannot determine because we do not have in place the arrangements with the UK that we should and that the Minister says we potentially will. We are going to have a system where somebody is indefinitely incarcerated in an overwhelmed prison system and the impacts that will have on that person and all of us. This is one of the reasons I am against the Bill in its entirety.

I hear what Deputy Gannon says. I am not going to repeat what I said earlier.

There are no further contributions.

Amendments Nos. 25 to 27, inclusive, may be discussed together.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that section 28 reflects the requirements of the reception conditions directive.

I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 44: After subsection (3), to insert the following: “(4) A provisional representative person or a representative person appointed in relation to an unaccompanied minor shall, in the performance of his or her functions, comply with child specific safeguarding standards, and in particular shall— (a) ensure that all actions taken in respect of the unaccompanied minor are guided by the principles of child protection, child welfare and the best interests of the child, (b) have due regard to the minor’s age, maturity, gender, cultural background, developmental needs and any indicators of trauma or vulnerability, (c) take all reasonable steps to ensure that the unaccompanied minor is protected from harm, exploitation, re-trafficking, secondary victimisation or any treatment that may adversely affect the minor’s physical, psychological or emotional well-being, and (d) ensure that any interviews, assessments, procedures or engagements involving the unaccompanied minor are conducted in a child appropriate, trauma informed and culturally sensitive manner.”. The amendment seeks to strengthen protections for unaccompanied minors by requiring that all provisional and full representatives meet clear, child-specific safeguarding standards. This ensures that every action taken in respect of children is grounded in child protection principles attentive to age, culture, trauma and vulnerability. It obliges representatives to actively protect minors from harm or exploitation and guarantees that all procedures, interviews and assessments are carried out in a child-appropriate, trauma-informed way, reinforcing the best interests principle through the process. It is an important provision that strengthens the legislation and ensures there is no doubt but that there is a child-centred approach when we are dealing with children. There is a broader piece of work around unaccompanied minors. Particularly with younger children, there is clearly often a hidden hand in terms of exploitation of the children entering the system, and we need to be very robust in dealing with that hidden hand and the individuals involved in trafficking minors. For the minors themselves, it is crucial that we have a child-centred approach. That approach must ensure that, in Tusla accommodation in particular, we do not have people claiming to be minors where that is disputed in the same facilities as actual, verified minors. This is where there is a huge question mark around the capacity of Tusla to manage the additional responsibilities this legislation will put on them. I raised this matter with the Minister of State, who said that Tusla would be fine even though Tusla very much is not fine at the moment. There are huge question marks over its ability to undertake the responsibilities it currently has. If we are in a situation where we need a three-tiered system, and two-tiered regarding unaccompanied minors where we have verified children and people for whom there is a dispute over their age - clearly with this latter category, we do not want them in adult-only accommodation either - this creates a big challenge. Tusla is an organisation that is stretched and there has been no clarification from the Minister’s Department or its sister Department that has oversight of Tusla that additional resources, capacity and supports are going to be provided to help it carry out what could become a very difficult task, particularly given that Tusla is currently engaged in quite a number of for-profit contracts for the provision of accommodation for children. That is completely unacceptable.

I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling his amendment to Seanad amendment No. 44. Section 50(a) of the Bill as passed by the Dáil provides for a regulation-making power that specifies the standards to be applied to representative organisations, provisional representative persons and representative persons. I do not believe this particular amendment is necessary. Moreover, section 50(b) provides that I, as Minister, shall make provision for the training of staff of representative organisations, provisional representative persons and representative persons. This will ensure that training is kept up-to-date and relevant and that representatives are fully aware of the applicable child safeguarding standards. Additionally, the best interests of the child are specifically stated to be a primary consideration in Chapter 2 or Part 3 of the Bill and in other Parts of the Bill. Considering this, the provisions already in this Bill provide a solid basis on which to ensure that minors are treated appropriately in the international protection process. Provision is already made throughout the Bill for safeguards and protections for minors in the processing of international protection applications, with obligations and responsibilities being placed on the determining authority to ensure these. Deputy Carthy has mentioned the problem that can arise if a child ends up in accommodation with an adult. It is a really difficult and complicated area. I would ask for a bit of - "sympathy" may be the wrong word - appreciation of the challenges that Tusla and other State authorities face. If a person arrives at the International Protection Office, claims asylum and says that they are 17 years of age, if there is then an issue about their age or if there is a question mark over it, there obviously has to be some process put in place. The Deputy would be criticising the State if the State put somebody into child accommodation because they had said they were 17 in circumstances where it transpired that they were 19 or 20. All I ask colleagues to do is appreciate how difficult this can be for Tusla or, indeed, the determining authority, as it will be after 12 June, or the IPO now. It is a real challenge if somebody says they are an unaccompanied minor and yet the State thinks that is not the case. People can criticise the State all the time by saying we got it wrong by putting adults in with unaccompanied minors, but we are very much dependent on people being honest and stating accurately what their age is. In circumstances where people provide documentation that suggests they are minors and it subsequently transpires they are not, there should be some appreciation of the difficult position the State finds itself in.

Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?

I will just make a couple of comments on that. The Minister's rationale for refusing to accept the amendment is, I believe, that there is no need for it. I would contest that. On the Minister's latter point, I do not think there is any suggestion that people do not appreciate the challenges that are involved. We have had quite an amount of discussion on this at the Oireachtas justice committee. For sure, the committee members fully appreciate that this is a very difficult situation to manage. In the first instance, we need to ensure that verified minors are not housed with adults. The point I am making is that there needs to be a secondary tier, as it were, for disputed minors because we do not want to have a situation where somebody whose age is disputed ends up in adult accommodation only for it to transpire that they were, in fact, children. It is not that we do not accept or appreciate the challenge. It is just that we do not have confidence in this Government to actually meet that challenge and deal with it. The evidence suggests that Tusla is not meeting its obligations, not only in respect of international protection, but in terms of vulnerable children generally. That creates the issue that needs to be addressed. Therein lies the problem. Tusla will have specific legal obligations as a result of this legislation. I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Colm Brophy, a number of times on Committee Stage what additional resources and measures would be put in place to assure that Tusla had the capacity to deal with the additional obligations it would have. The Minister of State simply answered repeatedly that he was satisfied that it would. That is not good enough and that is not an assurance to this House. I hope the Minister can give us a more substantive reassurance.

We will put amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 44-----

Will the Minister respond to the question I asked in terms of Tusla?

He has responded already.

We are talking about the Deputy's amendment. I have given my response to the Deputy's amendment.

Seanad amendments Nos. 58, 60 and 157 are related and may be taken together.

The purpose of Seanad amendment No. 58 is to give further effect to procedures regulation provisions relating to non-entry to the State of applicants subject to the asylum border procedure. Article 43.1 of that regulation provides that the asylum border procedure may be applied only where an applicant has not yet been authorised to enter the state. It is necessary to provide in the Bill for the distinction under the asylum procedures regulation between asylum border procedure applicants and other categories of applicants. Subsection (1) provides that following the screening carried out under Part 2, I as Minister shall give applicants an authorisation to enter the State for the sole purpose of having their application examined. This provision is very similar to the current provision in section 16 of the 2015 Act. Subsection (2) clarifies that an authorisation to enter shall not be given to applicants who no longer have a right to remain in the State because they made subsequent applications to delay or frustrate their removal from the State or because they are considered a danger to public order or national security, or those applicants who do not have the right to remain pending their appeal to the tribunal. The other category of applicants who shall not be authorised to enter are those whose applications are being examined under the asylum border procedure. There are exceptions to allow for an applicant to be permitted to enter the State when the deadline for the asylum border procedure expires and the applicant has not received a final decision on their application and for those applicants for whom the inadmissibility of accelerated procedure no longer apply. Exceptions apply also for applicants whose special reception or special procedural needs cannot be met in the border procedure or where there are medical reasons for not applying the asylum border procedure. Subsection (3) provides that the Minister may revoke an authorisation given to an applicant where the determining authority becomes aware an applicant poses a national security or public order threat. In such cases, once the authorisation is revoked the applicant will be deemed never to have been given an authorisation. This is to ensure that even if an applicant was initially authorised to enter the State and their application is being examined under a different procedure, when information relevant to public order or national security comes to light at a later stage that applicant can be placed in the asylum border procedure with its associated restrictions of freedom of movement. Seanad amendments Nos. 60 and 157 are technical amendments introduced to clarify cross-references to the new section proposed to be inserted by Seanad amendment No. 58.

Seanad amendments Nos. 63 to 89, inclusive, 127 and 226 are related and may be discussed together.

The proposed new Part 4 of the Bill gives effect to the reception conditions provisions of the reception conditions directive. Seanad amendment No. 63 provides for the definition section of Part 4 to include definitions of "accommodation centre", "clothing allowance", "daily expenses allowance", "family member", "house rules" and "material reception conditions". Seanad amendment No. 64 proposes that the provision of material reception conditions and the monitoring of reception conditions in Chapters 2 and 3, respectively, will apply to an applicant who is present in the State and not the subject of a transfer decision or a return decision. As the reception conditions directive is applicable to all international protection applicants, this amendment will ensure applicants who have made an application under the 2015 Act will also be able to avail of material reception conditions under this Bill. Seanad amendment No. 65 aims to ensure material reception conditions are provided to applicants to guarantee they have an adequate standard of living while in the State. It is essential applicants receive this while ensuring those with the financial means pay for themselves. Deputy Carthy's amendment to Seanad amendment No. 65 has been ruled out of order but I did not intend to accept it as it is overly restrictive to say such services cannot be provided by any for-profit provider, may significantly hinder the provision of material reception conditions to minors and therefore negatively impact the very people the system should be aiming to protect. I am proposing the introduction of Seanad amendment No. 66 to ensure the adequate organisation of the State's reception system. This amendment provides that certain matters must be considered before allocating accommodation, including family unity, gender- and age-specific concerns, the special reception needs of the applicant, the efficient consideration of the applicant's application and the prevention of assault and violence to the applicant. Regarding Deputy Carthy's amendment to Seanad amendment No. 66, my Department operates a high degree of transparency in relation to IPAS and centres. Any restriction on publication is based on residents' security, safety or privacy or commercially sensitive information the publication of which would damage the State's ability to achieve good value for money. My Department publishes figures detailing the number of residents in centres, with a breakdown of numbers of emergency accommodation centres on a weekly basis. There is full transparency from the Department in terms of providers receiving payments, with details of all payments over €20,000 and the recipients published quarterly on gov.ie. Inspection reports from all IPAS accommodation centres are published either on hiqa.ie or gov.ie and therefore it is not necessary to accept the Deputy's amendment. The treatment of minors and their well-being during the international protection process is of importance to the Government. As such I am introducing Seanad amendment No. 67 which provides for key considerations to be taken into account when dealing with the reception needs of minors. This amendment provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration with regard to the reception needs of minors. As with the previous amendment, this Government wants to ensure minors going through the process can avail of services that will help their development and provide education. Seanad amendment No. 68 provides that minors are provided with the same access to primary and post-primary education and other supports. To ensure applicants are provided with the opportunity to integrate, Seanad amendment No. 69 permits the Minister for further education to make arrangements to ensure applicants have access to courses. Seanad amendment No. 70 is a substantive amendment that seeks to ensure applicants have access to adequate levels of healthcare. To ensure special reception needs are identified as early as possible I am introducing Seanad amendment No. 71. I cannot accept Deputy Carthy's amendment to Seanad amendment No. 71 as there are currently no nationally prescribed applicable qualifications to be an interpreter in Ireland, regardless of whether those interpretation services are provided to international protection applicants or to other persons. Interpretation services are made available to applicants by translation and interpretation companies contracted by the IPO. Such companies are contractually obliged to ensure interpreters possess the qualifications and competence appropriate to the tasks for which they are employed. It is important applicants receive access to information on their entitlements to material reception conditions as soon as possible. As such, I am introducing Seanad amendment No. 72, which states the applicant must receive this information within three days. To ensure there is a clear set of rules for IPAS accommodation I am introducing Seanad amendment No. 73, which provides for the making of rules in relation to an accommodation centre. Seanad amendment No. 74 provides that a travel document may be issued to an applicant where there are serious humanitarian reasons or other reasons that require the applicant's presence in another state. Seanad amendment No. 75 provides for the definitions of "material reception benefits" and "section 82 decision". Seanad amendment No. 76 provides the grounds on which I can reduce or withdraw an applicant's material reception conditions or the Minister for Social Protection may reduce or withdraw an applicant's daily expenses allowance. Seanad amendment No. 77 provides for the requirements that must be adhered to where I or the Minister for Social Protection make a decision under amendment No. 78. This includes the need to inform the applicant of the reasons for the reduction or withdrawal of supports. Seanad amendment No. 78 permits me or the Minister for Social Protection to restore or partially restore an applicant's material reception benefits after a determination that the applicant's conduct has ceased. Seanad amendment No. 79 creates a regulation-making power for an appeal of a reduction or withdrawal. Seanad amendment No. 80 provides the definitions for the terms used in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill. I am introducing amendment No. 81 which provides for the designation of a public body to be the monitoring body for the purpose of monitoring accommodation centres. HIQA is designated as the monitoring body until another public body is designated and it is the one that has responsibility under the 2018 reception conditions. Seanad amendment No. 82 provides that I may set national standards for accommodation offered to people in IPAS. Regarding Deputy Carthy's three amendments to amendment No. 82, I do not propose to accept them. The Department received offers of international protection accommodation on an ongoing basis from external commercial providers. All offers are reviewed by the Department under a standardised appraisal procedure which aligns with processes in place for the award of State contracts across Departments and sectors. A team appraises each offer to accommodate people seeking international protection and the Department does carry out due diligence. All properties are subject to pre-occupancy inspections to ensure they adhere to standards. All new centres are supported by the community engagement unit. The engagement process is co-designed with the local authority. I am committed to ensuring local communities' access to accurate information and that structures to plan for the provision of essential services support are in place. Seanad amendment No. 83 provides for the monitoring body may require a service provider to provide it with any information it considers necessary in order to determine the level of compliance by the service provider with the standards. Seanad amendment No. 84 provides that the monitoring body may appoint employees to be authorised persons for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill to ensure applicants are living in safe and adequately managed accommodation. Seanad amendment No. 85 provides for the inspection of centres used to house those seeking international protection. An authorised person is permitted to enter and inspect a premises with the consent of the occupier or pursuant to a warrant. An accommodation centre that is subject to an inspection may need to give the authorised person information that is reasonably required for the purposes of the functions of an authorised person. Seanad amendment No. 86 provides that an individual who prevents an authorised person entering such a dwelling is guilty of an offence. To ensure high standards are upheld in the provision of accommodation, I am introducing amendment No. 87 to allow for a report to be prepared by individual who inspect accommodation centres. Seanad amendment No. 88 provides that the monitoring body shall be notified within 21 days of applicants being allocated to an accommodation centre. To ensure the well-being of applicants, amendment No. 89 provides for a requirement for notifying the monitoring body of any serious incident that takes place in the centre. Where such an incident or event occurs in an accommodation centre, the service provider must notify the monitoring body within three days of the date on which the incident occurred. In the case of an unexpected absence of a minor, the service provider concerned shall notify the monitoring body within 24 hours of becoming aware of the absence of the minor. Seanad amendment No. 127 is a technical amendment to correct reference to new sections that give effect to the reception conditions directive. Finally, I proposed Seanad amendment No. 226 to propose to reflect the fact that a body other than HIQA can be designated as the body responsible for monitoring accommodation centres and that this should be reflected in the provision for membership of the advisory board for the chief inspector of asylum and border procedures.

As we are approaching the end of the debate and are about to reach the guillotine I will speak to several of the amendments at once. The Minister used the term "family unity" in his contribution, which gives me the opportunity to speak about his family reunification changes. Of the measures contained within this Bill, that one is not based on any evidence and seems purposely designed, in the Minister's own words which he has reiterated time and time again, to send some form of message, but I am not sure the recipients of the message he is trying to send are deserving of the cruelty that is contained with it. Family reunification is provided for in international law precisely because it enables a scenario where somebody who has not only come here in search of sanctuary but has actually been given refugee status can be reunited with an immediate family member. The current process involves about 18 months on a waiting list and a year. The Minister is changing what was previously three to two, meaning a person will have to wait the best part of three or three and a half years, if they are given refugee status, to be reunited with a child or an immediate family member. This has never in any way had a great impact on the system. The numbers are fairly minuscule. When the Minister tried to explain the policy he is announcing to me in the Chamber a couple of months back he seemed to be confusing different types of family reunification with the one specific to what we are speaking about now, which is refugee family reunification. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to reconsider that. It is something that actually aids not only the person who has received refugee status but also the communities in which he or she has start to rebuild his or her life. I also implore the Minister in respect of Seanad amendment No. 76, pertaining to healthcare. Has the Minister taken a trip to Safetynet on Amiens Street?

Where?

Safetynet on Amiens Street. It is a front-line service that deals with the most marginalised vulnerable groups and provides immediacy in terms of healthcare. The staff down there have stories that would send a shudder down most of our spines about providing healthcare to people who were previously in the asylum process but had then received deportation orders and lost access to all medical treatment, including mental health supports, and cancer supports in some scenarios. That is a grisly policy that has ramifications beyond the people who are losing their healthcare support because it means they are left in a community devoid of mental health supports and the medications that go with them. I will ask two things of the Minister. First, I ask him to reconsider family reunification and, second, to visit Safetynet on Amiens Street and hear the testimony. It might be very eye-opening in terms of some of the issues we discussed in the Chamber and the issues that stem from them.

You wait for a long time for a bus and then a number of them come at once. A number of my amendments are in this grouping and I will restrict myself to them, considering the timeline. I know amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 65 has been disallowed but I want to make the case very strongly that we need to end the use of for-profit providers of accommodation for those in Tusla care. That is what this amendment sought to do. A judge in Dublin District Court recently hit out at what he quite rightly described as the profiteering by private operators providing unregulated placements for the most vulnerable children. He described it as wrong and shameful, and he was right. Special emergency arrangements are unregulated placements provided by private operators. They are not compliant with national standards, they are not inspected by HIQA and they are typically in rented buildings. We know from recent reports that up to a quarter of staff working in special emergency arrangements last year did not have the documentation required to work with vulnerable children There is clearly a problem with those providers and whether the amendment is accepted or not, I hope it is something the Government will work on. How is it that every time there are vulnerable people who need accommodation involved, the Government figures out a way whereby a few lads will make a lot of money on it? It is just unbelievable. That could be Tusla and the provision of care for children but where it is absolutely most blatant is in the IPAS system. There is continuing and ongoing failure not only to address the profiteering within the IPAS system but, on the Minister's part, to even acknowledge that it is happening. We know that a small number of private operators have made millions of euro from the Government's dysfunctional approach. What is worse is that there is no transparency, including around what actually qualifies some of these providers to provide these services. The amendment to Seanad amendment No. 66 is simply about ensuring there is some transparency. We have called for a full review of every IPAS contract. The reason for this is that everybody who has looked at these issues objectively and every journalist who has carried out an examination of any IPAS contract has found blatant wastage of public money and a number of scandals have emerged. We do not have to ask politicians or journalists. The Comptroller and Auditor General, the Government's own watchdog, has found major weaknesses in IPAS contracting. The Minister tells us that this cannot happen again or will not happen again but there is nothing in policy form to provide a bit of transparency on that. This is an amendment that the Minister could accept that would send out the message that the Government is learning the lesson when it comes to the lack of transparency within the IPAS system. In the context of my amendments to Seanad amendment No. 82, I am surprised because I clearly heard Simon Harris, the Tánaiste and the leader of a main party in government, say that communities have to be engaged. The Government cannot proceed in the way it has up to now, namely where communities are disregarded and the only criterion to determine where an IPAS centre is located is that an operator has a building and is willing to use it for that purpose. Simon has an opportunity tonight to direct his party's Deputies to vote in favour of this amendment in order to make it clear that IPAS centres should only be placed in areas where the resources are in place to accommodate them and that communities have a real say in what happens to them. That would be better for everybody. It would be better for residents of IPAS centres and local communities. Amendment No. 2 to Seanad amendment No. 82 deals with the absolute lack of due diligence and information regarding beneficial owners of those companies that have received IPAS contracts. Any information on scandals - and there have been plenty - has never come from the Department; it has always come from journalists or independent voices, and sometimes from residents who have raised serious questions. The pre-legislative scrutiny report we talked about earlier warned that due diligence processes for international protection accommodation were completely inadequate. It highlighted the incomplete checks in respect of planning permission, ownership, safety compliance and provider suitably. It concluded that weak oversight and inconsistent verification created financial, legal and operational risks within the accommodation system. If there is nothing to hide, there would be no reason to oppose this amendment. I have to make that point strongly. Amendment No. 3 to Seanad amendments No. 82 states, "The Minister shall, by regulation, prescribe a maximum daily amount payable by the State for accommodation provided to applicants". Again, everything is being done to avoid any kind of transparency. On the notion of commercial sensitivity, as if there is anybody in the private sector going around with €1.3 billion to spend on accommodation. There is nobody in competition with you when it comes to this type of contract because nobody else would spend the amount of money the Department of justice is spending. Anybody else, even if it was devolved to local authorities, would get better value in the morning in terms of the money being spent. There has been a lot of talk about price gouging in recent weeks. There has been serious price gouging going on over the past number of years. The average rate paid per bed rose by 68% from 2022 to 2024. This amendment would empower the Minister to take this by the reins, set a maximum daily rate and ensure it is adhered to. Cases have been throughout this debate and unfortunately the Minister has just refused to listen. It has been the narrative of the past couple of weeks. This Government refusing to listen. The protests in recent weeks were about its refusal to listen with regard to the cost of living and the soaring cost of fuel. When it comes to the international protection system, the Minister has been refusing to listen. He just put all his cards into the EU migration pact basket. He has refused to engage in any constructive way with the Opposition on this Bill. We have repeatedly tried to engage with him in the context of increasing increase transparency and accountability, ensuring community engagement and resolving some of the problems he created in the context of mistrust between the public and Government on this issue. We have also sought to ensure that we get value for money and, ultimately, have an international protection system that works for everyone, namely applicants, local communities and the taxpayer. The Minister has refused time and again to engage, and now we are trying to talk about a number of important amendments in a matter of minutes because, once again, the Government has guillotined the debate on the Bill. The Minister has done himself, his Department, this system and the legislation a disservice with the way he has approached matters from start to finish.

I thank Deputies Gannon and Carthy for their contributions. As an overview, when it comes to legislation like this, I, as Minister - I presume this is also the case for the House - have to try to balance conflicting rights. When dealing with international protection legislation, on one hand, we have to take into account the interests of the applicant claiming they are fleeing persecution or war to seek refuge in Ireland. On the other hand, I have to try to balance the interests of the State because, as Deputy Carthy indicated, there are huge costs involved in providing accommodation for individuals who seek international protection. The primary driver of the costs involved is the number of applicants coming in. In 2024, 18,500 people applied for international protection in Ireland. I have openly stated that I want to try to reduce the number of people coming into Ireland claiming asylum in circumstances where many are subsequently found not be entitled to it. The point I have made is that there are too many people claiming asylum who are not entitled to it. That has been subsequently adjudicated to be the case. That is my objective. I have tried to shift the balance in a particular way in favour of the State. That brings me to the first issue raised by Deputy Gannon, namely family reunification. Family reunification is an issue very much premised on the rights of the asylum applicant or in this instance the refugee who has been granted status. In Ireland, there are two or possibly more methods of achieving family reunification. The first is via the non-EEA family reunification policy. I updated and changed that last year. The policy applies in circumstances where people come to Ireland to work as nurses, carers or doctors and, having been here for a number of years, apply for family reunification. Under that process, they have to be able to show that if they bring their relatives over from the other country to live in Ireland, they will be able to pay for the upkeep of their relative once they have arrived in Ireland. That is reasonable. It is the balancing of rights. I have to ensure the State does not end up picking up the cost of looking after individuals who have come here and will then require many of the services we all know are under pressure. That is the non-EEA family reunification process. It requires people to show an ability to pay for and look after the individuals who have arrived here as part of their family. Separately, there is the refugee application for family reunification. This is not governed by the EU migration pact; it is a sovereign decision we can make if it is decided to support it. The change I am proposing is that individuals granted refugee status in Ireland will have to wait two years to apply to bring their family over to Ireland. Similarly, like people in the non-EEA mechanism, they will have to be able to show they have the means to pay for and care for them. That is not an unreasonable position for the State to adopt. We are an extremely generous State in terms of granting asylum but it is too much to say that family members brought over should be paid for by the State as well. That is why the proposals set out which state they have to wait to years and show they have the financial wherewithal to support their family if they want them to be reunified in Ireland is a reasonable proposal. Asylum policy in Ireland must also take into account what is happening in the UK. I cannot ignore what is happening in the UK. It has a significant impact on what happens in Ireland.

You have ignored it completely.

In terms of family reunification, on 4 September last year the UK on suspended refugee family reunification. They suspended it in the UK. An aspect of UK policy I have to be conscious of is that if something is changed in the UK which makes Ireland a more materially attractive place for persons to come, it is a factor I have to take into account. It may not sound virtuous, but I want to try to reduce numbers of people coming into Ireland claiming asylum because I know from the statistics that there are too many people coming here claiming asylum who are found not to be entitled to it. I am not asking anyone to comment on the matter or agree with me, but that is the policy objective here. One of my concerns was that if Ireland had a family reunification policy for refugees that was more attractive than in the UK it could become a pull factor in Ireland. The Oireachtas is entitled to objectively set out what we think is reasonable when it comes to family reunification. It is a big obligation to place on a State that when it takes somebody in who is a refugee, it will also take in their family.

Immediate family.

I know, but it is a big obligation and it comes at a big cost. I am entitled to try to - and the Oireachtas is entitled to say that we are going t -, shift the balance slightly towards the State on those scales. It is also the case that for family members who are already here it does not apply, and, obviously, it does not apply for an unaccompanied minor who is granted status here. I will deal with Deputy Carthy's point on the cost of IPAS. I agree with him. I want to reduce the amount of money the State is spending on IPAS. It is too high and it needs to be reduced. Deputy Carthy has got to acknowledge that the driver of the cost is the number of people coming in. That is the main driver behind it. I hear what he says about contracts that were entered into. I have said previously that contracts were entered into too highly. At present, I am making savings in the area of IPAS. In any renewal that has been done I am saving money and I am cutting down costs. I am being very careful with the amount of money that is being spent. I never heard anyone in the House say they disagreed with the reception conditions directive, which requires us to provide accommodation to international protection applicants. If people want to say we should not do so - and there are people in Ireland who say that we should not do so - then say it, but if it is the case that people are-----

Transparency is what the amendment asks for.

If it is the case that people in the House are going to say that we should stick with the reception conditions directive and should provide accommodation, it necessarily means that we are going to have to spend money on accommodation. I am trying to get State accommodation to provide it. I am actively cutting down costs. I have cut down the numbers of people who have come to Ireland claiming asylum. As I said, in 2024 there were 18,500. In 2025, the number was 13,000. I want to seek to reduce it further.

The time permitted for the debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 14 April: "That the Seanad amendments not disposed of are hereby agreed to in Committee and agreement to the amendments is accordingly reported to the House."

Agreement to the Seanad amendments is reported to the House. A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.