Paul Murphy: Challenges Minister on Detention of Children Bill
Paul Murphy criticised the minister's response to a bill he described as 'for the detention of children', arguing amendments are needed to make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in asylum procedures. He challenged the minister's refusal to accept specific amendments and called the minister's reasoning inconsistent.
Claims about detention of children
Paul Murphy said the bill effectively creates powers for the detention of children and urged that the 'best interests of the child' be explicitly made a primary consideration in asylum procedures.
Amendments proposed
He outlined amendments seeking explicit reference to the best interests of the child and guarantees for minors, and to interpret the asylum provisions in line with Article 23.
Minister's response and perceived inconsistency
The minister rejected the amendments, arguing the protections were already present. Paul Murphy contested that position, noting the minister himself had read the provision and that it appeared only in the part relating to urodac and screening rather than in the asylum procedures section.
Next steps and political challenge
Murphy warned the amendments would be voted down at committee stage but urged reconsideration, arguing the presence of the wording elsewhere showed a recognised need for its explicit inclusion in the asylum section.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
I actually think the Minister's response there is quite revealing. We are saying this is a bill for the detention of children. You are saying, no, don't worry, I am going to recognise the rights of children, nothing to be worried here at all. But then we have amendments before us that say that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in the carrying out of this procedure in terms of asylum. We have amendments that say that this part will be interpreted in line with the guarantees for minors set out in Article 23. The Minister is here to tell us that he cannot accept that. The most substantive reason that he gives the reason he cannot accept it is that he says it is already there. But the Minister knows it is not already there because he just read it out. It is there in a different part. You asserted two reasons you cannot do it. One, because it is already a legal obligation, so what is the point of doing it? But then you said, secondly, it is already there. It is already there in a different part. You read it out yourself. It is in the part relating to urodrac and screening. So it says there, explicitly, that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in the carrying out of the procedures in that part. We are asking it to say it in relation to the asylum process, and you are not going to accept it. Are you going to consider it? Well, you are not going to accept it today at Committee's date. As part of your consideration, I would ask you to consider the fact that you can't logically say, well, we don't need it because it is already binding on us because of the Article 23 itself. But then, on the other hand, say, well, it is here in relation to this particular part. Do you know what I mean? The fact that it is there in relation to the urodac and screening illustrates that it is there and someone decided there is a need for it to be there in order for that to apply. And yet, as it stands, when we finish committee stage, it is not going to be there in the part that relates to asylum procedures. And like, do you really want to be the Minister who is saying that we are not going to say that the best interests of the child and guarantees for minors and so on are not going to be referenced in terms of how we are carrying out asylum procedures. So fine, you will vote against it today, you will vote it down. But I would say that the argumentation does not hold water. The fact that it is referenced elsewhere suggests that someone somewhere, you know, recognise the need to reference it and it needs to be referenced in relation to this party as well.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
