International Protection Bill 2026: Committee Stage (Resumed) Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-19 ============================================================ Patricia Stephenson (SD), Labour Panel I will be speaking to some of the amendments Senator Noonan spoke about and a few others. I will let the Minister know which ones they are when I reach them. Amendment No. 38 provides that "A member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer shall not arrest an applicant under this section for the sole reason that he or she is an applicant, or on the basis of his or her nationality." The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, has cited numerous mechanisms that deprive international protection applicants of their liberty despite the right to liberty being one of the most strongly protected rights under international law and, indeed, Irish law. We are concerned about the idea that we might risk criminalising the very act of asylum seeking and the very act of migration. The concern for us here is that this Bill has no safeguards to avoid that potentially taking place. On amendment No. 19, which the Minister will be familiar with, the reception conditions directive states that any decision imposing detention should state the reasons "other less coercive alternative measures" could not be applied effectively and "any alternatives measures to detention should respect the fundamental human rights of applicants". This is why we have proposed an amendment around the idea of a "measure of last resort". It seeks to put the onus on the Government to comply with international law, to be creative and to think about alternative ways instead of always defaulting to the position of detention, which, certainly when it comes to children, is not in anybody's best interests. On amendment No. 46, we have heard from human rights organisations that they are very much troubled by the fact that this Bill is providing a kind of power of arrest for large swathes of the non-Irish population, and not just international protection applicants. It sounds eerily similar to scenes we have seen in other countries around immigration, with customs and practices changing and becoming much more draconian. I am concerned that this Bill prioritises, above all things, the power to detain vulnerable people who are seeking protection, particularly on the question of minors. It prioritises detention and the forced movement of people to screening centres, thereby overriding the rights of people with special reception needs in particular, such as people with disabilities, elderly people, pregnant people, families and perhaps people who have been victims of rape, torture or other forms of sexual violence and violence in general. Being forced into a detention centre could have hugely retraumatising impacts. On amendment No. 47, which was ruled out of order, I am going to speak about it briefly. It was ruled out of order simply because of the cost. Everything could potentially be interpreted as having a cost, so it obviously makes our abilities to put forward good amendments quite limiting in many instances. This was about suitable accommodation, specifically for minors, and because we are concerned that the Bill's power to detain any applicant who may be the parent or guardian of a minor. There are no measures laid out to make accommodations for the safeguarding of the child in that case other than to contact child and family agencies. I am sure many people here are aware of the story of Peter, a 14-year-old who was placed in a horrendous Tusla-run special care arrangement situation. He was left alone to sleep on a soiled mattress. There was no food for him to eat and no one to make sure he went to school. There were inadequate hygiene facilities and three adult strangers in the accommodation with him. Repeated calls to Tusla never got any further than that and we cannot allow such treatment of children and that is why this amendment was put forward. I recognise that it has been ruled out of order but this idea of having appropriate accommodation for children who are in detention is so crucial. The idea that we would not have it is shocking. On amendment No. 50, I will talk again about my concern about the normalisation of detention as the best way to manage challenges with asylum seekers. I find it astonishing that there is no other option and that we are just going straight with detention. We are looking at harsh punishments as a first resort instead of a last resort. It risks criminalising asylum seekers. These are people who have a legitimate right under international law to seek asylum when fleeing war, abuse or persecution. Obviously we have a massive issue with overcrowding in prisons, as the Minister will be well aware, in the Dóchas Centre prison in particular. Recently, there was a story about the high levels of overcrowding there. I visited it last September and I heard from prison officials that the challenges with the beds is the number of people being detained on their way to deportation and the significant impact that is then having on other prisoners and their ability in terms of rehabilitation and getting the right access to supports and resources so that they are not in the continuous cycle of recidivism. There are alternatives to coerced detention. We could have regular check-ins with gardaí, requiring an applicant to stay in a particular location. These would be just as effective, more humane and less costly and put less pressures on the systems. I will also speak to amendment No. 53, which was also ruled out of order. I will not spend long on it, but again, this is about people with special reception needs, namely, people with disabilities, pregnant women, older people and children. Again, this was ruled out of order because of the cost it would incur. The idea that people with very specific needs would not be catered for is a human rights violation, potentially. We should not be downgrading any of the provisions that we would be offering these groups. --- 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