Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There are several strands to the issue of rights, but two primary strands. One is the rights that people stand to lose in the context of a hard Brexit or, indeed, any Brexit. The second is the rights in which there currently are deficiencies even in advance of Brexit. I have given two examples of that in respect of naturalisation and visas, but other absences have been clearly identified. There is a view that a bill of rights would be of significant assistance in that regard, but it requires legislative change in the South as well. We will consider if there is any way we can table amendments in the Seanad. However, there was a commitment in the context of Brexit not to leave northern citizens behind again. To be true to that, the Government must accept, and I hope the Minister will accept, that there is a need for legislative change to validate and affirm the rights of citizens living in the North. I hope that will be progressed in short order, and I ask the Minister to do that. It is what is required to be consistent with the commitment not to leave northern citizens behind.

Regarding the responses to the amendments, I will respond first on the additional considerations. I do not believe they are restrictive by any means. They take a further set of grounds into consideration as well as the others that exist, including inhuman and degrading treatment, as Deputy O'Callaghan outlined. They are necessary and are in line with developments in the last seven or eight years in the major conventions, such as the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and with what the UN is saying. These would not have necessarily been part of standard jurisprudence before that. They are emerging areas and I am not sure Irish legislation has kept up to date with that. I believe we should and I will press the amendment.

With regard to heightened consideration, we already give heightened consideration to people in different circumstances. We put a heightened consideration for children into the Constitution. In many respects we give heightened consideration to people in vulnerable circumstances, people who might have a disability and so forth. We regularly give heightened consideration to people depending on their circumstances, and it is entirely appropriate. If we are going to send a child out of Ireland because the child did not qualify under the non-refoulementtest that currently exists, it is entirely appropriate to say that we wish to take a heightened look at the case and to consider it very seriously before sending the child back to what might be an extremely hostile environment. There is nothing unreasonable or inconsistent in requiring a heightened consideration where a child is involved, based on the child's best interests.

See this speech in context