International Protection Bill 2026: Committee Stage (Resumed) Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-19 ============================================================ Malcolm Noonan (GP), Agricultural Panel I move amendment No. 19: In page 23, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(2) A reference in this Act to a “measure of last resort” means, in relation to an adult or a child, a measure that is taken only after all non-custodial alternatives to detention have been duly considered, in accordance with Recital 33 and Article 10(2) of the Reception Conditions Directive.”. I will speak to amendments Nos. 19, 38, 49, 50, 51 and 52 in the name of the Cross-Party Group. This amendment seeks to define “measure of last resort” to ensure that non-custodial alternatives are enshrined in the Bill and that all alternative options are examined before a person - an adult or a child - is detained. We should be clear first of all that, as various human rights groups have made clear, the detention of a child is never in the child's best interests and runs contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is incompatible with the child's best interests, yet the Bill currently allows for the detention of children. Ireland has never resorted to the detention of children for immigration reasons in the past. This has been a point of pride for successive Governments. However, if the Government is insistent, as it seems to be, on changing this and for the first time embedding the detention of children within our immigration system, this amendment is vital. We need to ensure that we look at all alternatives available to the State in relation to how we treat people once they arrive in our country, the processes we put them through and the places in which we put them. The Minister claimed in the Dáil that this is effectively unnecessary because the Bill already limits the circumstances for detention, including children, as though that should end the discussion on this matter. However, the limit he spoke of is the requirement that the Garda must be satisfied that the child's detention is in the interests of the child, which, as we know, is not true. He also pointed out that detention would be time limited to 12 hours as if to say that 12 hours' detention is a trifling matter not deserving of our scrutiny. Simply put, we are not satisfied that this issue is dealt with adequately in the Bill. That is why we are putting forward this amendment. We need to make it crystal clear on the face of it that the Bill and all other options must be looked at before detention is resorted to. In relation to amendment No. 38, the Bill significantly expands the powers of arrest and detention within our asylum and immigration system. Again, this is regrettable. The amendment makes it clear that on the face of the Bill, the act of seeking international protection itself can never be criminalised. It is a simple amendment. The expansion of detention inherent in the Bill is unwelcome and something to which we are opposed. We only need to look around the world today to see that people end up in dark places when migration itself is treated as a criminal matter or when detention centres become the primary means of dealing with this issue. It is not our job as legislators to legislate for the best intentions for the Government or the Minister of the day. I am sure the Minister will say this amendment is unnecessary because, of course, it is not his vision for our migration system. Simply put, we do not believe that the Bill, as drafted, includes the necessary safeguards to ensure that arrest and detention do not at some point in the future take centre stage in our migration systems. These have been issues that have been highlighted by others in opposition over the course of the past two days. That is the impetus of this amendment. It is to protect the fundamental right to seek asylum and ensure it can never become criminalised in this country. Amendment No. 49, together with amendments Nos. 50 and 51, would require that when an applicant is accompanied by a child, less coercive measures than detention are used. The expansion of detention under this Bill, putting powers of arrest at the heart of our migration policy for the first time, is deeply regrettable. What is more, the Bill does not provide for the safeguards necessary for vulnerable people and groups within the system. Most egregiously, it has already been said that the Bill allows for the detention of children. In cases where a child is in custody of an applicant, it is imperative that the child is not under threat of detention simply by way of accompanying his or her parents or guardian to the detention centre. Where a child is under the guardianship of an adult, less coercive measures must be applied and that is what these amendments seek to do. Together with amendment No. 7, they seek to ensure that a child who has not committed any crime cannot be detained under this Bill. I have spoken to amendment No. 50 already. On amendment No. 52, the detention of children is never compatible with their best interests. Every human rights organisation and expert group we have heard from has been clear on this issue. The amendment would delete the provisions in the Bill that allow for the detention of minors by the Garda in order to ascertain their identity or nationality. The Bill, as it is currently drafted, includes a stipulation that in order to detain a child, the Garda must be satisfied that it is in the accompanied minor's best interests. It is really baffling that this provision has been made in this Bill's passage, while evidence heard throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and beyond is that this is impossible. We could charitably say that the Government's determination to include this is wishful thinking that if we just keep saying it is in the child's best interests, then it will be, or we could be less charitable by saying that this is wilful ignorance. Our job in these Houses is to legislate based on reality, not on wishful thinking. Again, the reality is that detaining a child is never in the child's best interests. It is simply wrong. Ireland has never resorted to the detention of children who have not committed a crime in our migration system. This needs to be a point of pride. It used to be the point of pride for previous Governments and it is deeply regrettable that this Government is choosing to blindly ignore all the expert testimony we have heard to date in order to play through on immigration at the expense of vulnerable children. This amendment would straightforwardly remove these provisions from the Bill, which we believe is essential. --- 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/2026-03-19/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:45+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-03-19