International Protection Bill 2026: Second Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-03
============================================================

Colm Brophy (FG), Dublin South-West

Fundamentally, that is good for the applicant and good for the State. There are huge benefits, which is why we have chosen to opt in. There is a point I would make, one that I think Senator Gallagher made in his contribution as well. We have seen the one state that thought it could go off and do this on its own, namely, leave the European Union and devise a totally independent one-off solution, bring absolute chaos onto itself by trying to do that.
Senator Higgins and I have a lot of differences of opinion on the nuances of where we are going with this, but anyone who believes we are not trying to manage this in the context of a global movement of people is trying to deceive themselves of reality. The pact underpins the fundamental rights of applicants. It has more effective screening and a vulnerability assessment system and introduces a new independent rights monitor, all of which are positive on one level. It also delivers faster processing for the State. It makes no sense for us to want to opt out.
The common travel area was mentioned by a number of contributors. We have good relations with the UK. We work consistently with UK authorities. We want to make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not weaken the integrity of the common travel area. Let us be honest about this - if there is a faster, fairer and more effective system for dealing with migration here, that helps to manage the common travel area. When people arrive, we are able to deal with them in a faster, fairer and more efficient way. That strengthens the common travel area as well as our involvement with our European partners.
There are a number of other matters. I will go through them. Age assessment will only take place where there are substantial doubts about the age of an applicant. The determination of age will not rely on a single test. A medical examination will only be used as a last resort where other assessments are inconclusive. The aim of the process is to ensure children are identified appropriately, enable them to avail of the rights and guarantees provided to minors during the asylum process, and ensure adults wrongly claiming to be minors are identified early and placed in appropriate accommodation.
Legal counsel was mentioned in a couple of contributions. Legal counsel will not be provided to international protection applicants as a replacement for civil legal aid. Legal counsel is to be provided as an additional service to inform applicants of asylum procedures, their rights and what to expect from the process. It will be provided at the earliest possible stages after the application for international protection is made and will be available to the applicant throughout the process. Applicants will remain entitled to apply for civil legal aid in the exact same manner they are today, including access to legal advice and representation. The eligibility of international protection applicants for legal advice and legal aid is provided for under the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 and regulations under that. That is why the specific provisions for legal aid do not appear in this Bill or in the International Protection Act. I stress that applicants will have the opportunity to avail of legal counsel on a one-on-one, in-person basis. Online services may be made available as a complementary or initial source of information but the applicant will be able to avail of one-on-one counsel. That enhances services, adding extra layers that are of benefit.
Detention of minors will only take place in exceptional circumstances and as a measure of last resort. The Bill provides for a very limited set of circumstances in which a minor may be detained for a screening process for the purposes of determining or verifying the identify or nationality of a minor where less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively and where detention has been assessed as in the child's best interest. All of these requirements must be met before a minor can be detained. Minors may only be detained for the shortest possible period in a place appropriate to their needs. The amendments to be introduced on Committee Stage to give effect to the reception conditions directive in relation to detention will clearly provide for the safeguards to be set out in that directive. I reiterate that this Bill does not permit the routine detention of minors and it will not become a feature of our international protection system.
The Sinn Féin representatives made a number of contributions on the cost of IPAS. Some concerns were recognised by other Senators. Since the day I became a Minister of State in this area, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I have been committed to introducing cost-effective solutions for international protection accommodation. We introduced a new rate card in May 2025 and we are driving down the costs. We are adding publicly owned beds to the system. The acquisition of Citywest Hotel added approximately an additional 4,000 publicly owned beds. I agree that the long-term, best, most efficient way of delivering international protection is to have the maximum amount of State-owned accommodation to keep costs as low as possible. We will probably never be able to do it exclusively by the State, so we will have that mix. That is where the rate card is so important because we must drive down commercial costs where they have been incurred. We are determined to do that. Senator Noonan's colleague, the former Minister, had the experience of the costs being driven up because the numbers went up exponentially. The most successful way of dealing with costs in IPAS is to bring the overall number down, which is what the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I are focused on, and to ensure that instead of people being in the system for years, they are only in it for weeks. People will go through much faster and there will be an overall reduction in numbers.
In relation to family reunification, I hear the argument. I do not buy into the clichés of performative cruelty or anything like that but I hear the genuine concerns raised by Senators. We are trying to create a balance. We are talking about the right of people to come in and have family reunification. We want to see that done in a way that allows for family reunification but does not incur an open-ended cost on the State. It is trying to get that balance right. That is why we brought in those changes. It is not to say we are opposed to the concept of family reunification, do not recognise it or do not believe it is important but we cannot just disregard - I am sorry to the Senators who think you can - the actual cost of family reunification. We must make sure that we, on behalf of the taxpayers and as the Government of this country, strike that balance between the right to family reunification and the cost to the State.
The assessment of the best interests of the child was also raised. I do not believe it would be necessary to have the overarching assessment that was mentioned by some people. The Bill clearly provides for certain provisions related to the treatment of minors at risk and where those minors' interests must be considered.
The impact of IPAS accommodations on communities was mentioned. There is an impact of IPAS on communities. The best way to deal with that is the International Protection Bill, which will bring down the numbers, get people through the system faster and have more State-owned accommodation, which will enable us to be in a position to return to the community the facilities currently used as IPAS centres. It will take a while; it is not going to be instant or overnight. If this Bill delivers, which we believe it will, we will have a more firm, fair and effective system and therefore will not have the same requirements.
In the interim, we are empowering the community engagement teams to deal directly with communities and local representatives and ensure much better engagement with local communities.
The issue of fundamental rights was mentioned. The Bill is firmly rooted in Ireland's obligations under the Constitution and international law to protect the fundamental right of those seeking international protection. As I said to the House at the start, we are not moving away from that. We accept the right, believe in it and want to manage it as well as possible.
I have probably missed one or two points and I apologise to Senators if I have. I was trying to keep a note. I thank everyone for their engagement on the Bill. My belief and that of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, is that our primary purpose is to ensure we have a fair but firm international protection system. We do not want to conflate provisions in the Bill with employment visas or anything like those. This is a Bill dealing with international protection and I believe it achieves its aims while providing a high level of certainty and clarity, not just for the State but also for the applicants. I look forward to working with the Senators to address the amendments they may have. I thank them very much for their contributions today.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-03-03/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:42+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-03-03