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

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

I thank Senators for their contributions and for moving this amendment. If Members look throughout the Bill as it is at present, there are numerous references to "the best interests of the child". For example, section 41 states that, "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the application of this Chapter." Section 51 also states that, "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the application of this Chapter." I now propose to include even further reference to it in the amendments. If Members look at amendment No. 200, they will see that I am proposing that there be a new section 70, which will refer to Part 4 of the Bill. It states that "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the carrying out of procedures in respect of a minor under this Part." Moreover, amendment No. 377 deals with the area of family tracing for unaccompanied minors and there is reference to the child as well.
What is proposed in amendment No. 21 is that "the best interests of the child" would somehow be defined or set out in six categories. Subsection (2)(b) states that "In determining for the purposes of subsection (a) what is in the best interests of the child, the following factors shall be taken into account" and it then sets out six factors. I think that by defining them, it is probably limiting them because "the best interests of the child" is a general term that any entity, whether it is the determining authority or a court reviewing the legislation, will be required to have a broader assessment of. Amendment No. 21 would, in fact, limit it.
In terms of the amendments that I do not intend to accept, namely, amendments Nos. 21, 30, 34, 199, 215, 262, and 268, my officials and the Attorney General have examined the requirements of the directives and regulation measures in relation to the consideration of the best interests of the child. As I said, I have brought forward the necessary amendments to make further provision and they are provided for in amendments Nos. 200 and 377, to which I referred a few moments ago.
Regarding amendment No. 21, I will not accept it because by listing out how we assess the best interests of the child, we are limiting it. Amendment No. 30 is a general provision regarding the best interests of the child. Article 23 of the asylum and migration management regulation and Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation set out that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for the State or the competent authorities of the State with respect to all procedures provided for in those regulations. That is a legally binding obligation on the State as a result of these regulations being directly applicable. As such, it is unnecessary to include amendment No. 30 in the Bill, and I do not propose to accept it.
Amendment No. 34 concerns the best interests of the child with respect to the collection of biometric data for the purposes of the Eurodac regulation. Regarding the Eurodac regulation, section 15 of the Bill clearly provides for the safeguards required by the Eurodac regulation in relation to the collection of biometric data from children. I do not believe a further provision is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 199 relates to the best interests of the child in procedures under the asylum and migration management regulation, AMMR. My amendment No. 200 proposes a similar provision in relation to AMMR.
Amendments Nos. 215 and 262 concern Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation. Article 22 provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration when applying that regulation. This is a directly legally binding obligation on the State. As such, it is not necessary to include these provisions in the Bill. Similarly, amendment No. 268 concerns the best interest of the child in the context of the qualification regulation. Article 20 of that regulation sets out that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for competent authorities of the State when applying provisions of those regulations to minors. This is a directly legally binding obligation on the State. As such, it is unnecessary to include the provision in the Bill.
I have also proposed amendment No. 377, which concerns family tracing for unaccompanied minors.
The reception conditions directive, the asylum and migration management regulation and the qualification regulation each make mention of family tracing for unaccompanied minors and the assistance to be provided to those minors in tracing their family members. Amendment No. 377 provides that the Minister shall have responsibility for ensuring that family tracing is undertaken in a timely manner. This amendment is necessary to safeguard the rights of unaccompanied minors within the international protection process. I therefore ask Senators to accept amendment No. 377.

---

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