International Protection Bill 2026: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-19
============================================================

Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland

There is a constant refrain of balancing the rights of asylum seekers and the rights of the State. Sometimes it may be a little bit of a negative framing. It is in the interests of the State that we are a state that does our best in relation to our international obligations in a world where people can access their rights. The idea is that we are balancing the rights of these people with almost a suggestion that the fundamental interest of the State is not to have people here and not to have to support them, and that we are compromising on that. Let me be clear: it is in the interests of the State that we would have proper, fair and real procedures that are accountable and proper safeguards. It is in the interests of the State that we would be in a world in which those who are seeking international protection can seek it and access it. I do not think that having that approach is a compromise on our interests. They are in the same interest.
I also think it is in the interests of the State that legislation should be properly scrutinised. This is something that is fundamentally in the interests of the State. I am also of the view that a guillotine should not be applied in respect of substantive legislation.
I would like if the Minister could clarify two issues that were raised. The first relates to facial recognition. This is not some historic issue. Last year, the UK's data protection watchdog challenged the Home Office and threatened it with potential future action because of the racial bias in facial recognition. That was in 2025. At the time, the Home Office admitted that its technology was more likely to incorrectly include some demographic groups in its results, so this is an issue. We are getting the picture now about the screening centre, which will identify people with Eurodac, which is going to involve facial recognition. Perhaps we might unpack what happens if someone believes they have been falsely identified under that system, if facial recognition has been involved. Is this going to become a piece that happens before people even get the chance to make their asylum applications? I have absolutely no problem with checking and verifying information. That is what you do in the course of an application, but this seems to be a kind of pre-application process that the Minister is talking about. Again, when he says there is no appeal, I am not clear what is in the system if somebody believes they have been falsely identified by means of that screening centre. How does that play out?
The Minister never answered our question in relation to amendment No. 37, which is the concern that people who are informed of their obligations are not necessarily informed in a language they may understand. Somebody might simply be informed in English, but if that is not the language they speak, they are in danger of being almost immediately in breach of the process and falling short simply because they did not understand what they were being asked to do. Could the Minister clarify if he is open to amending that? It would be better if he were to amend it himself to ensure that people are informed in a language they might reasonably be expected to understand. I refer to the core obligation, which, as the Minister said, comes at the very beginning of those processes.

---

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