International Protection Bill 2026: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-18 ============================================================ Lynn Ruane (IND), University of Dublin There was considerable discussion at the justice committee on what constitutes legal advice versus legal counsel. The definition proposed by the Minister in amendment No. 14 see here today is somewhat similar to what is required under the EU pact itself. However, it has significant additional add-ons. I will make some general observations on those add-ons to the definition set out in the amendment from subparagraph (iv) onwards. It appears that this has to do with determining what member state is responsible for determining a person's IP application. Without proper legal advice at this point, a person could find themselves transferred to another member state, possibly without good and lawful reason. At this important stage of a person's application process, not having the highest standard of legal advice could see the person sent to a different member state. Therefore, clarification on the reasoning is needed. We need to consider people who may have special reception needs or who may be specifically vulnerable in this regard, such as disabled persons, victims of trafficking, children and so on. Their requirements go above and beyond the requirement for legal counselling provided for in the pact. Given what is at stake, it should be done by qualified lawyers. I suggest that on Report Stage we will seek to delete subparagraph (iv), pending the Minister's contribution on this matter. I suggest that subparagraph (i) in amendment No. 14 goes beyond the provision of information and guidance and tips into a requirement for legal advice. This can have serious and significant consequences for a person, especially a person with special reception needs who is being transferred to another EU member state. Such a person obviously would require legal advice and not legal counsel. Subparagraph (vi) in amendment No. 14 relates to take-back requests. If the State believes that another EU member state should process an applicant's application for international protection, it can ask the relevant member state to take back the person under what is commonly referred to as the Dublin regulation system. Subparagraph (vi) proposes that legal counsellors should provide international protection applicants, including people with special reception needs such as disabled people, children and victims of trafficking, with information about how to fill out a template which may well result in them being transferred to another EU member state. It does not seem appropriate that legal counselling should deal with something of such significant consequence to international protection applicants, particularly people with special reception needs. The Bill provides for legal counsel on request, as required by Article 16 of the asylum procedures regulation, APR. Crucially, however, it leaves out a provision for the exercise of State discretion under Recital 16 in the APR, which states: It should also be possible for Member States to provide for free legal assistance and representation during the administrative procedure in accordance with national law. There is nothing under the pact to stop the State from continuing to provide legal advice and assistance with regard to administrative procedures in the first instance - at the beginning stage - but it does not do so at present. Without provision for legal aid to allow people to get legal advice and assistance at the first stage, international protection applicants will not be properly advised going into the system at the outset. Recital 16 encourages member states to provide legal advice and assistance at all stages of the process. It states: It is in the interests of both Member States and applicants that applicants receive at a very early stage comprehensive information on the procedure to be followed and on their rights and obligations. In addition, it is essential to ensure a correct recognition of international protection needs already at the [early] stage of the administrative procedure by providing good quality information and legal support which leads to more efficient and better quality decision-making. For that purpose, access to legal counselling, assistance and representation should be an integral part of the common procedure for international protection. In this instance, the State is choosing not to do this, thereby creating risk for vulnerable applicants and making the cost and resource of intensive litigation inevitable. The Bill proposes to amend the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 to include a definition of "legal counselling". Under the proposed new section 11B(1), the Legal Aid Board will decide who has the relevant "knowledge, experience, qualifications, training or expertise to provide legal counselling". To put it another way, it will decide who will not do so. There will be no State regulation of legal counsellors. It will be left up to the Legal Aid Board. Legal counsellors will then be unregulated in this country. The proposed new section 11B(2) will allow the Legal Aid Board to contract legal counselling to "a person contracted by the Board". This could mean private solicitors or barristers. However, solicitors and barristers have professional duties and obligations to their clients. They will not be able to stop at providing legal counselling; they will also have to provide legal advice and representation. Without legal aid for that, it is not clear how it would work. As legal counsellors are not legally qualified persons - or if they are, they will not be acting in that capacity - they will not be covered by professional indemnity insurance, which means that as soon as someone asks for tailored individual advice about their particular application, the legal counsellor will have to decline to provide it. Finally, the proposed new section 11B(4)(e) provides that legal counsellors can provide information and guidance on "the rights and obligations of applicants who are unaccompanied minors or in need of special procedural guarantees". These people are in the most vulnerable cohort of international protection applicants. It is not appropriate that legal counsellors should give information about this. In order to be able to give such information and guidance, legal counsellors would first have to ask questions to ascertain that a person is an under-age minor, or otherwise vulnerable. Without proper training, legal counsellors might retraumatise a vulnerable person. This cohort in particular needs legal advice and assistance at the first stage of the process. --- 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/2026-03-18/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:44+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-03-18