International Protection Bill 2026: Committee Stage (Resumed) Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-19 ============================================================ Frances Black (IND), Industrial and Commercial Panel First I want to speak about a concern I have about Government amendment No. 37 which outlines the obligation of an immigration officer or a garda to inform an applicant being directed to a screening centre of their obligations under the Bill and the fact that their refusal to follow such a direction would constitute an implicit withdrawal from the asylum process. However, it does not contain any provision that such information would be provided to the applicant in a language that they can reasonably be expected to understand, as is included in other parts of the Bill. It would seem entirely unfair if applicants were withdrawn from being able to apply for international protection based on information they have received which they do not understand. I hope the Minister might consider this amendment. Moving to our own amendments in this grouping, amendment No. 40 ensures that people cannot be arrested without a warrant under this section, and the discretionary powers granted to immigration officers and gardaí under this Bill are highly concerning. We do not believe that they should be detaining and arresting people without a warrant. My other colleagues have spoken about concerns of misidentification leading to detention, and this provision seeks to avoid those types of outcomes. Similarly, amendment No. 56 requires a court order for the detention of applicants, which is currently not required. Amendment No. 57 allows a person recourse to judicial review in the event of their detention under this section. Amendment No. 42 is inserted to ensure that facial image data is not used for the purposes of identifying a person under this Part. Currently, it is unclear how facial image data will be used, but in this section a person may be detained for the purposes of identifying them. This provision aims to ensure that the use of facial image data does not motivate these decisions. Organisations such as Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have previously and consistently raised concerns about the risks associated with the use of biometric data and facial recognition in law enforcement, notably in relation to the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act 2023 introduced by the previous Government. A study done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States showed that African American and Asian faces were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white faces and the highest false positive rate was among Native Americans. Similar research conducted by the University of Essex in the UK showed that the technology tested was accurate in just 19% of cases. Various studies on the use of facial recognition in policing in the USA, Canada and the UK have found that facial recognition systems misidentify black faces at a very high rate. Facial recognition is less accurate in identifying people with darker skin tones, especially women, due to inherent biases on the material used to train facial recognition software, with some software showing misidentification rates being 34% higher among darker skinned females than lighter skinned males. There are several high-profile cases of individuals being falsely identified by live facial recognition software used by the Metropolitan Police, for example. We need to ensure that such automatic misidentification does not happen here. Amendment No. 45 seeks to prevent people from being detained in a vehicle longer than the time it takes to transfer that person to a screening centre. Currently, the Bill allows for a person to be detained in a car for up to 12 hours, which is a completely disproportionate length of time for someone to be detained in a vehicle. It would be useful if the Minister would share his logic on this provision. Our amendment would ensure there would be some sense of proportionality to the duration of time someone might be detained in these circumstances. Amendment No. 46 ensures that an applicant with special reception needs is not criminalised for behaving in a manner likely to endanger the applicant's safety or the safety of others when a garda or immigration officer is arresting and detaining someone to take them to a screening centre, or obstruct or hinder them while they are performing those functions. There need to be explicit exceptions laid out for people with special reception needs. These are highly vulnerable groups that include minors, persons with disabilities and persons with mental illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The circumstances of their behaviour need to be fully considered in the context of their special reception needs, especially if it might result in arrest and detention. Amendment No. 48 deletes three subsections, which provide for the detention of unaccompanied children, and will replace them with a provision that explicitly prohibits the detention of children. Children should not be detained under this Bill. It is regrettable that there are several provisions that allow for their detention. Even if it is considered a measure of last resort, this goes against the recommendations of the Ombudsman for Children and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Both have stated that children should not be detained for any immigration-related reasons and detention is never in the best interest of the child. Our amendment provides that families will not be separated and they should be accommodated in appropriate accommodation. Less coercive alternative measures to detention are not defined in this section, so our amendment No. 54 seeks to do that by defining it as a regular reporting to an authority, the submission of a financial deposit or the requirement to stay in an assigned place. Amendment No. 55 provides that applicants with special reception needs shall not be detained if it puts their physical and mental health at risk. If they are detained, they should be provided with ongoing support. However, as we have alluded to with our other amendments, we fundamentally believe minors should never be detained under this Bill. --- 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