International Protection Bill 2026: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-18 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland We have all been awaiting the definition of "legal counselling". It has now come, but with a large set of concerns, as we have heard outlined. I want to delve a little bit more into the question of who a legal counsellor might be. Under the proposed definition, the "guidance, information or assistance" to be given by the legal counsellor is strictly limited. The Government sets out in amendment No. 14 that it may include "guidance on, and explanation of, the procedure in respect of an application, including information on the rights and obligations of the applicant" and "assistance with the lodging of an application". It does not give the scope that would come with actual legal advice that looks to the wider context. It literally just informs a person of the procedures. In that context, we know it is unlikely to be solicitors or barristers delivering this because solicitors or barristers, in terms of their professional duty, would have an obligation to give all the relevant information. I indicate that we will be looking to ensure that all of the information relevant to persons in the context of applications and the law, not just in terms of procedures, but the national and international legal context in which they are operating, would be made available to people. There is no guarantee any of that will be given. In fact, there is quite a strict preclusion of what information will be given. It is also clear that legal counselling is, as we said, digital, group or individual, but it is not tailored to the individual. That was the point being made by Senator Stephenson. It is not giving individuals that kind of report. I worry that we have a new concept of legal counselling that we are trying out. We are experimenting with a new concept on an extremely vulnerable population, which in many cases will already be facing language barriers and so forth. We will be in a situation where you can imagine being asked if you would like legal counselling. You would say yes. This is why I strongly support amendment No. 60 from the cross-party group, which says you need to be informed of your rights to each of these different kinds of legal piece and you need to be told the difference between legal counselling and legal representation. Otherwise, you can see that people will believe they are getting legal advice tailored to them, when in fact they are getting advice, which is not from a legal professional, a solicitor or barrister, which does not include all relevant factors under the law but is simply constrained to passing on a small set of information about procedures. That will leave them high and dry when it comes to the complexities of their individual case. It will fall to the Legal Aid Board to decide who is a legal counsellor and what qualification or experience they have. There is no oversight or regulation. We are trying out a new form. I note with concern that the Minister mentioned digital. We are aware of the previous experiments with chatbots maybe giving migration advice to people. It is concerning where it may be coming from and the form it is coming in, and what protections will be there against that kind of advice. My colleague has also spoken to the fact that not only are we trying out this new method of legal counselling but there are also those with special reception needs such as unaccompanied minors. I urge the Minister, when we come to Report Stage, that at minimum we look to ensure proper legal advice and representation for those in that vulnerable category. I do not believe that unaccompanied minors are in a position to say they will choose legal counselling over legal representation and know the difference and to have that difference communicated. We have a responsibility at every age. The Minister is aware that throughout our legal system that the State has to put the best interests of the child centre stage. That is an obligation. That should also include the best interests of the child in the case of unaccompanied minors and ensuring, in their best interests, that they are being given the best possible legal advice and representation. I am concerned that the Minister said this is not to replace but to be supplementary to legal representation. However, amendment No. 15 changes the definition of legal representation, which is also a concern. We have legal counselling as this new concept constrained in what it can advise. We then have legal representation, and we might have thought we knew what it meant. The Bill previously said it meant a practising solicitor or barrister but that is being removed. Amendment No. 15 is changing the definition of legal representative. Not only are we seeing a shift in the definition of legal counselling, but we are seeing changes in the definition of legal representative. That leaves us with people being lucky enough to say they want they want the legal advice option defined in Bills. It is the luck of the draw which word they chose to put after legal, to determine what support they got. We know in practice that the legal aid system, in terms of proper legal advice and representation, is overstretched and under-resourced in that regard. I also note others have pointed out the concern that because of the constraints that apply, there is a danger in the area of indemnity. Those legal counsellors will likely not be covered by indemnity insurance. Maybe the Minister will clarify if he imagines these legal counsellors will be covered by normal indemnity insurance as a practising solicitor or barrister will be. We will see a potential situation where individuals are looking for the customised advice they need and are being denied it by a legal counsellor who is frankly not covered or insured for that kind of thing in the way a normal practising solicitor or barrister would be. The Minister said last week that people can apply for legal advice but there is no provision for people at the first stage, so they are likely to have failed in their early attempts. What will happen is that we will see the Legal Aid Board flooded with applications seeking personalised legal advice and an administrative burden placed on it, and one which in likelihood it will be unable to provide. My colleague has talked about the fact that we are allowed to provide legal representation. However, we should be clear that the actual regulation encourages the provision of proper legal representation. The asylum procedures regulation states clearly under Recital 16 that "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." It also states "It should also be possible for Member States to provide for free legal assistance and representation [which is a bar different from the counselling bar we are hearing from] during the administrative procedure in accordance with national law." I again wonder why the Minister, instead of properly resourcing and supporting the systems we have in terms of legal advice, assistance and representation, is experimenting with this new concept of legal counselling. The language given to us from European level is literally that of assistance and representation. There are a number of other amendments in this area. Amendment No. 203 relates to section 81 of the Bill, which is where people are being notified of the Minister's decision to transfer a person to a different member state. They would notify, provide or communicate information to the person concerned and "any legal adviser or other counsellor representing". That is what it used to say. Now it is going to say, "legal representative". I understand the bar that we would like to see proper legal representatives dealing with the situation, for example, of a proposed transfer to another member state. My concern is that people do not have legal representation but a legal counsellor because at that early vulnerable point entering the system they were asked if they wanted legal counselling and said yes to that. They were not aware or made aware or supported in accessing proper legal representation. What is happening for those persons in terms of the notice of the transfer decision? Is that just going to the individual, and the legal counsellor who they thought was going to be helping them has just washed their hands and is not there? Will they be provided with access to legal representation at that point? Will there be measures in place where it is simply going to be the luck of the draw and that because they did not fight hard enough to get an actual lawyer, barrister or solicitor to help them early on, they are now being told we are deporting them? They will have nobody by their side because it turns out that legal counsellor was just somebody employed to press a few generic pieces of paper into their hands. What is happening in practice in situations like the transfer decision in section 81, where there is only provision for actual legally relevant support for those who may have got a legal representative? Under this legislation it seems that will likely become a narrower pool than is currently accessing legal representation. --- 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