International Protection Bill 2026: From the Seanad
Dail Éireann — 2026-04-15
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling his amendment to Seanad amendment No. 44. Section 50(a) of the Bill as passed by the Dáil provides for a regulation-making power that specifies the standards to be applied to representative organisations, provisional representative persons and representative persons. I do not believe this particular amendment is necessary. Moreover, section 50(b) provides that I, as Minister, shall make provision for the training of staff of representative organisations, provisional representative persons and representative persons. This will ensure that training is kept up-to-date and relevant and that representatives are fully aware of the applicable child safeguarding standards. Additionally, the best interests of the child are specifically stated to be a primary consideration in Chapter 2 or Part 3 of the Bill and in other Parts of the Bill.
Considering this, the provisions already in this Bill provide a solid basis on which to ensure that minors are treated appropriately in the international protection process. Provision is already made throughout the Bill for safeguards and protections for minors in the processing of international protection applications, with obligations and responsibilities being placed on the determining authority to ensure these.
Deputy Carthy has mentioned the problem that can arise if a child ends up in accommodation with an adult. It is a really difficult and complicated area. I would ask for a bit of - "sympathy" may be the wrong word - appreciation of the challenges that Tusla and other State authorities face.
If a person arrives at the International Protection Office, claims asylum and says that they are 17 years of age, if there is then an issue about their age or if there is a question mark over it, there obviously has to be some process put in place. The Deputy would be criticising the State if the State put somebody into child accommodation because they had said they were 17 in circumstances where it transpired that they were 19 or 20. All I ask colleagues to do is appreciate how difficult this can be for Tusla or, indeed, the determining authority, as it will be after 12 June, or the IPO now. It is a real challenge if somebody says they are an unaccompanied minor and yet the State thinks that is not the case. People can criticise the State all the time by saying we got it wrong by putting adults in with unaccompanied minors, but we are very much dependent on people being honest and stating accurately what their age is. In circumstances where people provide documentation that suggests they are minors and it subsequently transpires they are not, there should be some appreciation of the difficult position the State finds itself in.

---

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/dail/2026-04-15/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:49+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-04-15