International Protection Bill 2026: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-18 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland A couple of issues arise. We are told the advice is likely to come from employees of the Legal Aid Board. Perhaps a better approach would have been to say that it would come from employees of the Legal Aid Board. We could allocate the resources of the State and have a number of employees. We would then be in a situation where there could be a sense of accountability. With respect, the Minister has not addressed the concerns about the regulation or accountability of those providing this legal counselling. The Legal Aid Board is appointing the counsellors but they are not necessarily employees. They may be, but they may not be. Where is the accountability? A question was raised, for example, about indemnity insurance. I would like to know what the accountability structure is. If people get bad advice from a legal counsel and if they are told something that may affect your life - and it can be a matter of life and death for some - what recourse do they have? What is the route in that regard? What is the accountability structure? Does accountability lie with the Legal Aid Board? Perhaps we will define it so the counsellors are employees of the board. In that situation, it would become a matter for the board. Is there a question around indemnity insurance? We have heard it is unlikely they would get indemnity insurance. That accountability piece is key and remains a question. Other key questions have not been addressed. Amendment No. 60 from the Cross-Party Group is a very good amendment. It states that people should be told what legal counselling is and their rights in that regard, what legal assistance is and their rights in that regard and what legal representation is and their rights in that regard. It provides that they would be announced and given as key information at the same time. I am concerned. We know the situation and how people operate, even the line that there is an argument for it as a money-saving measure, that people would be excluded from the legal counselling if they have legal representation. We can imagine in a situation where an individual is told that if they go for legal representation, if they come in with a solicitor or a barrister or whatever, they are not going to be entitled to legal counselling. That could feel like the language of exclusion, threatening, making them feel they may be making a mistake or doing something wrong. That is the way people may feel when they are trying to navigate a bureaucracy, not because they love or choose bureaucracy but because they are put in a situation where they are having to seek asylum in many cases and they are trying to navigate that. I am worried that there is a disincentive to legal representation that may come - perhaps inadvertently and perhaps intentionally; I do not know - from that exclusionary language around the legal counselling piece. Somebody might say they are afraid to get legal representation because they are being told that it will exclude them from legal counselling, and they will not get the information they need about the process. Like many people when they land, not many people are familiar with the law until they find themselves trying to navigate it. Amendment No. 60 was a very sensible one which made it clear what the three things were at the same time. I would like the Minister's views on accepting that amendment. I would also like if we could have clarity about the point in respect of unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable people in particular and that question of legal counselling. Is it only at the point of appeal that an unaccompanied minor is going to get it? I know there is this concern about the representatives that unaccompanied minors are entitled to. They say they are entitled to have an assigned representative but the Government's amendments Nos. 101 and 102 later remove the requirement for those individuals to have the necessary skills or expertise. It allows that an individual representative may represent up to 30 minors at once. Is there not a danger that we create a situation where minors are effectively only getting legal counselling and not being supported in terms of accessing legal representation, given that special duty of care and the rights of the child, which we put into the Constitution collectively just a short few years ago in this State? There is that duty in terms of the best interest of the child. I would like if the Minister could elaborate on best interest, regulation, accountability and that question of clear information as to the multiple options. --- 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