I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy. Before I call on him, I take the opportunity to welcome the group from Laois County Fine Gael. I understand that they are guests of Deputy Aird. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House.

I echo that; they are all very welcome. I am very pleased to introduce the International Protection Bill 2026, following its recent passage through Dáil Éireann. Migration has been a distinctive feature of Ireland’s history. In recent years, ours is a country that is now able to provide the opportunities those who emigrated once sought. Over the years, we have seen the invaluable contribution that foreign-born workers have made in Ireland. The Government is very clear about the value of migration to Ireland. The vast majority of people coming to Ireland are here to work or to study.

The Government fundamentally believes in the right to claim asylum. We will always uphold our obligation on this important principle of international law for the sake of those who need our protection. At the same time, migration and asylum have given rise to challenges not only for Ireland, but across the European Union. Migration and asylum are shared challenges that are increasingly difficult for any one country to deal with acting alone in this now very globalised and interdependent world. Although we remain steadfast in our commitment to provide refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, it must be acknowledged that the context we are operating in has changed significantly in recent years, due to the large number of applications we are receiving.

While our commitment to providing international protection is unquestionable, I believe we must reform the system to ensure that it is fit for purpose and provides protection to those who need it.

International protection decisions in this country have historically taken far too long. That situation benefits no one. It does not serve the applicants who are granted international protection, who face challenges in integrating into Irish society due to these delays; it does not benefit the State to have increasingly high demands placed on an already stretched accommodation system; and very importantly it undermines public confidence in the systems and agencies designed to provide effective protection to those who need it. The challenges we currently face in providing an asylum system that is fit for purpose are shared by other EU member states. The overall objective of the new EU migration and asylum pact is to provide a fair, sustainable and efficient asylum procedure. This will be achieved through convergence in asylum practices across the European Union.

It is for these reasons that the Government has put forward the International Protection Bill 2026. The Bill represents the most significant reform of Irish asylum laws in the history of our State. It will put in place a new framework to manage migration and asylum for the long term. In that context, I would like to address the recommendation of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in its pre-legislative scrutiny report that opting out of the majority of the EU migration and asylum pact might be reconsidered. The pact and the Bill introduce faster processing of asylum claims with a much more efficient decision-making system. Faster processing will mean that applicants spend less time in IPAS accommodation. It will significantly reduce the cost of the asylum system to the State.

Faster decision-making will also mean that successful applicants will be granted international protection sooner and those applicants who are refused can be returned to their country of origin sooner. Having a common system across the EU makes sure that all applicants are treated in the same way in every member state, with no incentive to move from one to another. If Ireland had not opted in to the pact, it is likely that we would face higher levels of secondary movement, slower processing and a less efficient returns system. This would result in applicants staying in the system for much longer, at much greater cost to the State in terms of the provision of accommodation and other supports.

It is for all these reasons that the Government and both Houses of the Oireachtas have given approval, in accordance with the Constitution, for Ireland to opt in to the pact measures. The proposal to opt in was debated at length in the Houses before the opt-in motions were approved. It is difficult, therefore, to understand how the joint committee made the recommendation it did. Aside from the fact that there would be no benefit to our opting out of any of the pact measures, it would not be legally possible to do so at this stage. The primary question I would pose to those who wish Ireland had not opted in is this: what would you do differently? What ideas for a better, more cohesive, more efficient system have you got that the pact prevents us from implementing?

I turn now to the detail of the Bill. The Bill is divided into 15 Parts which I will briefly outline. Part 1 deals with preliminary matters. Part 2 sets out matters relating to the taking of biometric data and the screening of applicants for international protection.

Part 3 provides for the procedures that will apply where a person applies for international protection. Provision is made for the assessment process for determining the age of an applicant. The new age assessment process will meet the requirements of the asylum procedures regulation and will involve a multidisciplinary assessment.

Part 4 implements provisions of the asylum and migration management regulation relating to the determination of the member state responsible for examining an international protection application. The new responsibility provisions replace the Dublin III regulation.

Part 5 deals with the examination of international protection applications. It outlines the different decisions that can be made in relation to applications and implements the provisions of the asylum procedures regulation relating to the asylum border procedure. This new procedure sets a 12-week time limit for first instance and appeal decisions to be completed for certain categories of applications. The aim is to issue decisions in the quickest time possible to those less likely to have an entitlement to international protection.

Part 6 deals with the right of an applicant to appeal to the new tribunal for asylum and returns appeals where an application for international protection is refused at first instance. The time limits to appeal will be set at the maximum of the range specified in the asylum procedures regulation. The tribunal will also be required to make a decision in respect of an appeal without holding an oral hearing unless the appeals officer is of the opinion that a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law cannot be achieved without an oral hearing.

The phrase "ex nunc" is a Latin phrase essentially meaning "from now on". It is used as a legal term to signify that the appeal will take account of the circumstances pertaining at the time of the appeal and not in the past.

Part 7 deals with the rights and entitlements of persons who have been granted international protection. Part 7 was amended in the Dáil to give effect to the proposals approved by the Government last November on family reunifications. Beneficiaries of international protection will be required to wait for a two-year period before bringing family members to Ireland and to be able to show proof that they are self-sufficient. This proposal recognises that our resources are not unlimited and that those seeking reunification should also be able to support any persons joining them. A person who is an unaccompanied minor at the time they made their application for international protection and who seeks to bring a family member to enter and reside in the State may request to have the waiting period waived as well as certain criteria on the reliance of social welfare payments or housing support.

Part 8 sets out the circumstances where voluntary return may be offered. Part 8 also makes provision for the withdrawal of international protection and the right of appeal for a person subject to the withdrawal of international protection.

Part 9 provides for the making of a return decision at the same time as a decision which rejects an international protection application. When a return decision is made, an entry ban notice will be issued to require the person to remain outside the State. Where a person opts for voluntary return, complies with all aspects and satisfactorily confirms his or her return, the entry ban notice and return decision will be revoked. Provision is made for the appropriate alignment with relevant provisions under the return border procedure regulation.

Part 10 provides for matters relating to programme refugees and the process that will apply where it is proposed that Ireland should seek to activate the procedure in the crisis and force majeure regulation.

Part 11 provides for the establishment, membership and functions of the new tribunal to deal with appeals under the Bill. It will be known as the tribunal for asylum and returns appeals, TARA. It will operate separately from the existing international protection appeal tribunal, IPAT, and will only deal with appeals against international protection return decisions.

Part 12 provides for the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism, as provided for in the screening regulation and the asylum border procedures, which will be headed by a chief inspector of asylum border procedures. The chief inspector will monitor compliance with EU and international law during the screening. The chief inspector will have the power to investigate allegations of breaches of rights and to inspect asylum border facilities.

Part 13 makes provision for miscellaneous matters, including the designation of safe countries.

Part 14 provides for transitional provisions and amendments to the International Protection Act 2015. Existing caseloads will continue to be processed under the 2015 Act. The new arrangements will apply to international protection applications lodged from 12 June.

Part 15 provides for amendments to other enactments.

I will speak briefly to the amendments that are intended to be brought forward on Committee Stage. These include amendments to give effect to the reception conditions directive in relation to material reception conditions, restrictions on freedom of movement, detention, special reception needs and labour market access. There will also be amendments to make provision for legal counselling, legal advice and legal aid. The amendments will include expanded and clarified provisions to deal with the temporary protection of displaced persons, including revocation of temporary protection.

I conclude with that and look forward to hearing the contributions of Senators and hope we can have a constructive and informative debate on this significant Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome Laura and Hannah White, Karen Powell and Mabel Henderson, who are guests of Senator McCarthy. They are welcome and I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House.

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Brophy, go dtí an Seanad tráthnóna inniu chun éisteacht agus labhairt linn mar gheall ar an mBille um Chosaint Idirnáisiúnta, 2026. I welcome the International Protection Bill before us. I believe that, as detailed by the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, it provides the reforms needed to ensure that our asylum system in Ireland is both fair and effective. The Bill lays the legislative groundwork, as detailed by the Minister of State, for the implementation of the directive on reception conditions and the six regulations referenced by the Minister of State in his opening remarks under the European Union pact on migration and asylum.

I know that I and others have made reference in this Chamber to the exponential increase we saw in the numbers of international protection applications in recent years. However, I feel it is worth repeating this to provide context for the introduction of the Bill before us.

In the four years from 2016 to 2019, the average number of international protection applications received by Ireland was approximately 2,500 per year. In 2022, the number of international protection applications received rose dramatically to 13,500. The year 2023 saw a similar number of applications and in 2024 we again saw an increase in the number of international protection applications, which rose to over 16,500. The cumulative total of over 55,000 applications received in this three-year period from 2022 to 2024 was approximately equivalent to the overall number of applications received for the previous 16 years.

In an effort to deal with this and to provide a humane response to the sharp increase in applications, the State had to act fast in its efforts to offer those seeking asylum accommodation and shelter while their applications were being processed. Given the scale and the timescale of the increase in applications, many of the solutions provided were temporary in nature and were never intended to be long-term solutions. If we pass the Bill, we will significantly reduce the time taken to process international protection applications, to less than three months, and we will greatly reduce our current dependency on hotels and guesthouses to provide accommodation for international protection applicants, thereby enabling those venues to be used for tourism and attracting new visitors to towns, villages and communities across the country.

In laying the legislative groundwork for the EU migration and asylum pact, the Bill ensures that we will play our part in establishing a common European approach to addressing migration and to processing international protection applications in a firm and fair way that gives clarity and certainty to applicants in a more timely manner than we have seen in recent years. I believe the majority of Irish people want to see this fairer and more effective rules-based system introduced. It will grant people the right to remain in this country and contribute if their application is successful, and if their application is unsuccessful, this decision will also be arrived at more quickly than we have seen recently, without long periods of uncertainty and waiting in IPAS centres. That this is far fairer all round. Mar sin, ba mhaith liom mo chuid tacaíochta a thabhairt don Bhille. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit.

We gather here today to debate a Bill that the Government claims will deliver stronger migration controls, faster processing and a more robust system. Let me be absolutely clear; I believe in strong controls on migration and in defending the integrity of our borders and our asylum system. That is a matter of sovereignty, fairness and national capacity. However, I oppose this Bill. While that might sound like a contradiction, it is not, because sovereignty without control over law-making is not sovereignty at all. The fundamental issue is this: once we pass this Bill, we are locked into EU law and any future change to Irish migration policy will require EU approval, not Irish approval. This Bill does not just create a new system; it sets a precedent that Irish migration law flows not from Leinster House, not from the Irish people but from Brussels. That is not theoretical. The Government already chose to opt in to the migration pact, even though it had no obligation to do so, and now we are legally bound to implement it in full. We are hard-wiring EU control into the heart of Irish migration policy.

A sovereign nation cannot adapt if its hands are tied. In this day and age, the ability to adapt, especially in the area of asylum systems and in migration more broadly, is vital. For example, for years, the mainstream argument was that countries like Ireland needed low-skilled migration to do the jobs that Irish people do not want to do. Now with automation and the AI revolution, low-skilled migration is being reassessed worldwide and has been seen by many as a liability, not an asset. Migration needs to change as economies change and the world changes, but if we pass this Bill, Ireland will not be free to change.

Because this pact can be changed by a majority among EU states, Germany and the larger bloc, we will be subject to their needs, not ours. If Germany decides next year that it needs lots of low-skilled labour, while we need to restrict inflows, we will bend to Germany. If, in the year after that, Germany decides to ramp up mass deportations, while we desperately need skilled workers, we will bend to it again. That is not sovereignty. That is dependency, and it is being locked into law by this Bill.

The Government opt-in was reckless, thoughtless and utterly devoid of strategic foresight. It walked Ireland into a binding EU framework without a single serious national debate, without explaining the risks and without acknowledging the constraints the Government was accepting on behalf of future governments and generations to come. We are legislating under duress of our own making, and that is political malpractice.

The next big issue with this Bill is that while it would give us power on paper, this does not translate into actual change. In fact, it threatens to overwhelm us. The central issue here is capacity or, more accurately, the total lack of it. This Bill expects the State to handle a volume of border procedure cases that we physically cannot accommodate. Let us state the obvious. Ireland has no proper land border infrastructure for detention or processing. It has none. The common travel area means that the inflow from Northern Ireland continues completely unaddressed. This Bill does absolutely nothing to close the loophole. According to the Garda Commissioner this week, organised crime groups are already trafficking people across that Border. This Bill offers no new tools and no enforcement plan.

The EU expects us to manage higher numbers, but gives us tools to reduce numbers. What will happen? We risk becoming not a sovereign gatekeeper but a processing hub, a holding bay for people we cannot remove, house or process within the timelines the pact imposes. This is not hypothetical. We need only look at what is happening already, because the next issue is that our system is already collapsing and the numbers prove it. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the final step in the process, is currently accumulating a backlog of 25 cases net per day. By December 2025, that backlog had hit 18,243 cases, a number so enormous, so unmanageable, that reform on paper becomes meaningless. The system is drowning and this Bill pours more water into the boat.

Let us talk about housing, because asylum and migration policy cannot be separated from the capacity to accommodate both new arrivals and those already here. Ireland built more houses per capita in 2025 than any other EU country, as per the EY EUROCONSTRUCT database, yet the percentage of Irish 30-year-olds still living with their parents has increased more in the past decade than in any other European country. We are building more than anyone else and falling further behind than anyone else. A Bill written in Brussels will not fix any of this. We need time to move towards a better model, in alignment with our national needs and capacities. This Bill pretends the capacities exist; they do not. It pretends our infrastructure and housing systems can absorb more pressure; they cannot. It pretends our appeals system can clear its backlog; it will not. If we are truly serious about thorough and fair international protection, migration, sovereignty and national capacity, we need Irish solutions, not EU-mandated frameworks.

There are steps we can take to truly and fully move forward. We can renegotiate Ireland's approach to opt-ins so that no Government can bind the country without parliamentary oversight. We can tighten Ireland's visa rules, an area fully under national control. We can further strengthen checks at ports and airports and, critically, along the common travel area where more abuse actually occurs. We can negotiate directly with the UK on cross-border management. In the longer term, we could consider aligning with the Danish model, a real opt-out, not the illusory opt-in sovereignty we have today. These are real tools, real policies and real sovereignty. Sovereignty is not a slogan. Control is not a heading in a Bill.

Capacity is not created by passing legislation written to satisfy EU deadlines. Ireland needs a migration system that answers to the Irish people, not to the majority will of other European governments with diverging interests. We need border control - real border control, not paperwork control. We need capacity - real capacity, not imaginary processing centres that do not exist. We need laws that can change when Ireland needs to change them, not when Brussels allows it.

For that reason, for sovereignty, for realism and for honesty, I will be opposing this Bill.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach. I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, for the work they are doing in this area. I understand they have both introduced new policies and legislative changes to strengthen the system and ensure it is rules-based, efficient and aligned with other EU member states. As others have stated, we need a system that is fair but firm, and that respects both the dignity of the people trying to access better lives for themselves in the EU and the integrity of our borders. I very much welcome this debate and support the Bill.

The right to claim asylum is an obligation under EU law. Last year, approximately 125,300 people arrived in this country. Of that figure, 13,000 were applicants for international protection, down 30% on the figure of 18,500 in 2024. Many of the people coming here are coming as essential workers, without whom our health services and many other sectors of our economy would simply collapse.

Issues arise when attempting to deal with a large number of applicants in a system that was never designed to handle such demand. Decisions have historically taken far too long in this situation, which benefits no one, as we all agree. This Bill is an attempt to reset the system. It will implement the provisions of the EU migration and asylum pact, the overall objective of which is to have a fair, sustainable and efficient asylum procedure. This will be achieved through convergence in asylum practices across the EU.

This legislation will streamline decisions and the returns process, introducing a new border procedure, with a three-month time limit for decisions, appeals and return orders in appropriate cases. The Bill will also create a new second-instance body, a tribunal for asylum and returns appeals, and will allow for fewer oral appeal hearings to make the process more efficient. It will also establish a new chief inspector of asylum border procedures and an independent rights monitor.

The Bill is the most comprehensive reform of immigration law in the history of our State and will replace the International Protection Act 2015. This legislation will significantly reform Ireland's approach to migration and asylum in line with the EU migration and asylum pact to provide a consistent, fair, sustainable and efficient asylum procedure in ordinary times, as well as in times of migratory pressure and crisis situations. It will ensure a fair sharing of responsibility through stronger governance of asylum and migration policies and convergent asylum practices across the EU. Having a common system across the EU ensures all applicants for asylum are treated in the same way in every member state, and that there is no incentive to move from one state to another, commonly known as secondary movement, with which we are all familiar here.

Faster processing will mean applicants spend less time in IPAS accommodation and will significantly reduce the cost of the asylum system for the State. Faster decision-making will also mean that successful applicants are granted international protection sooner, and those applicants who are refused can be returned to their countries of origin sooner.

For these reasons, both Houses of the Oireachtas voted to opt into the pact. The programme for Government commits to introducing a new International Protection Act to implement the EU migration and asylum pact.

Some people are advocating that we should go it alone and do it on our own. If we are looking for evidence to substantiate that, we need only look at our closest neighbour, the UK. It left the EU of its own accord. The number of people who have claimed asylum there has sharply risen, with over 110,000 people applying in the year ending June 2025. Small boat arrivals have driven much of the increase and account for almost 40% of claimants. The main purpose of the UK leaving the EU initially was to take control of its own migration policy. Unfortunately, it has not worked out well, and we can see the proof before our very eyes. For those advocating to go it alone, the experience of the UK would not inspire much confidence.

When talking about the UK, the Minister of State will know that the majority of our applicants are coming through the UK. I welcome the fact that we now have a good, strong relationship with our nearest neighbour on this issue. I understand that many people are also arriving here and travelling to the UK, so it is a two-way system. I welcome the fact that there is good co-operation between Ireland and the UK, and that the relationship has developed and deepened in recent times under the leadership of the Labour Party in the UK.

To sum up, I sincerely hope and firmly believe that this legislation will give us the necessary tools to address this issue. It is an EU issue and, therefore, it is an EU response that is required to address it properly. I have every confidence that the legislation we are discussing today will be successful in that regard.

I call Senator Collins. I understand she proposes to share time with Senator McCormack. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. As the Minister of State acknowledged, the primary purpose of the legislation is to facilitate Ireland's opting into the EU asylum and migration pact. Let us be clear: we did not have to opt into this. Under Protocol No. 21, we had the ability to opt out. That safeguard exists precisely because of our unique circumstances, yet Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael chose to discard that flexibility and sign up wholesale.

Sinn Féin has been consistent. We did not oppose co-operation. We support opting into some measures, like the asylum and migration management regulation and the Eurodac regulation, because information sharing and a returns policy make sense. However, we did not support opting into every element without properly accounting for Ireland's position as a state with a land border with a non-EU jurisdiction and as part of a common travel area with Britain. That failure to account for the common travel area is extraordinary, particularly when Ministers repeatedly acknowledged that the vast majority of international protection applicants travelled here via Britain.

Cross-party scrutiny of this Bill raised profound concerns. Stakeholders from across the spectrum agreed on one thing, namely, the Government is unlikely to meet the timelines it has been assigned. Failure on this is not simply going to be embarrassing. It could expose the State to infringement proceedings and substantial fines. That means the Irish taxpayer is paying for a political decision that did not need to be made.

In County Limerick, people understand both fairness and practicality. Limerick has shown compassion and welcome, but people have also raised legitimate questions about school places, GP access and transport links. Decisions on IPAS accommodation have too often been driven by the availability of a building, rather than the capacity of a community. That approach breeds frustration and division. We need pre-assessment of community capacity, not a first-come, first-served model, driven by private investment and investors. The cost of IPAS accommodation exceeded €1 billion last year. We have seen eye-watering profits made by a small number of operators. Taxpayers in Limerick and across the State, working families already stretched by housing and childcare costs, are entitled to transparency and accountability for every single euro spent.

The system itself is clearly under strain. On average, it takes more than two and a half years for an international protection application to be finalised. Deportation orders are signed in their thousands, yet confirmed deportations are constantly less than half that figure. That undermines confidence in the entire system. A fair system must be enforced. If someone is entitled to protection, they should receive that protection quickly and be supported to integrate.

If they are not entitled to remain, that decision also needs to be implemented swiftly and humanely. This Bill risks diverting energy away from fixing those operational failures into meeting an EU deadline.

Democracy is not just about a government making decisions; it is also about ensuring future governments reflecting the will of the people are not unnecessarily bound by choices that restrict their flexibility. Ireland can and should design an international protection system that reflects our sovereignty, geography and values. One size does not fit all.

Even at this stage, the Minister should reconsider the blanket opt-in and prioritise Ireland’s interests. Our communities deserve a system that works. Those fleeing war and persecution deserve timely, fair decisions and decent conditions, and the Irish people deserve legislation that is properly scrutinised, properly costed and properly thought through. I really hope that when it comes to Committee Stage, we will have the opportunity to go through amendments we will be proposing.

The Minister of State, in his statement, asked what we would do better and what ideas there are for a better, more cohesive, more efficient system. If we thought signing up to this EU pact would make our migration system better, we could examine it properly. The reasons we are opposing it are clear.

I was listening to the Minister for justice, Deputy O'Callaghan, on the RTÉ news last night. He was talking about applications for asylum in Ireland. Ninety per cent of the applicants in January came from the North of Ireland. How would signing up to the EU pact actually fix that? If we were more focused on uniting our island and dealing with the issues we have in this regard, it might assist. The fact that we are debating a Bill to impose the EU migration and asylum pact on Ireland, a pact we did not have to opt into in the first place, is very frustrating. It is frustrating because we know Ireland is unique. We are an EU member state but at the same time we are part of a common travel area with a state outside the EU. The Government has signed up to a pact that future Governments cannot opt out of. I just do not understand why we would hand over more power to the EU and limit our ability to manage our own policies on migration. We are a unique island. I am disappointed that this Government has chosen to ignore a unanimously agreed cross-party recommendation from the Oireachtas justice committee to reconsider opting out of the majority of the provisions in this pact.

I want to address the issue of international protection. We all agree in this House that the international protection policy is a mess. Decisions are taking too long, as are appeals, and deportations are not being enforced. The locating of IPAS accommodation has so far been driven by private interests, who are profiteering massively from a chaotic, badly managed system. The Minister of State asked what we would do differently. There would not be profiteering from IPAS. Migration policy should be driven with the best interests of everybody in mind. We must manage the system to account for the need for workers and skills shortages in key sectors, such as healthcare. We must also have a humanitarian response to those fleeing war and persecution. We must also be mindful of the housing crisis and the lack of capacity in our healthcare and public services.

I will say it clearly: the housing crisis and lack of capacity are the result of long-standing neglect by previous Governments of our public services. Unfortunately, in the world we live in now, there are those who seek to use those issues to suit their own narrative and sow division in society. That is why it is so important to engage with communities and have proper consultation. Had we had proper consultation in all of these places in the first place, we would not have had the mixed messaging and the problems in our communities that we had. We must be sure that the needs of communities and the welfare of IPAS residents are to the fore of decision-making, not the profiteering business interests of property owners. There should be an assessment of the availability of services such as those associated with GPs, school places and access to transport. This is where the problems happen. We will propose amendments on these issues, as we did in the Dáil. I hope the Minister will be sincere about considering them.

I understand Senators Harmon and Stephenson are sharing time, with each having four minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State. The Government has been in office for over a year now, and over that time we have seen it repeatedly try to act tough on immigration with grandstanding rhetoric. This has included some very worrying comments from our Tánaiste, deflecting from the housing crisis and implying immigration is the reason we have a housing crisis in this country. This is very divisive and concerning, and this Bill is the latest irresponsible step in that pattern. The Government claims it is just aiming for a quicker, more efficient asylum system, but this Bill is more interested in limiting the rights of those seeking asylum.

This is the biggest change to Ireland’s migration laws in a generation but the Government has been intent on rushing it through the Oireachtas without proper scrutiny. We saw this on Committee Stage in the Dáil. Hundreds of amendments were tabled by Opposition parties but the Bill was not examined properly by a select committee. Instead, it went before the Dáil Chamber and was guillotined before the vast majority of amendments were reached. This means that only a small minority of amendments are being considered. Therefore, it will fall to the Seanad, on Committee Stage, to make sure we have a full debate on amendments. We, and certainly Senators in the Labour Party, will be tabling amendments on this.

There is a lot in this Bill that is ill thought through and that simply does not make sense. There are several provisions that it seems likely could be subject to future litigation because, in its rush to get this Bill passed, the Government is risking making errors.

Family reunification is not some optional extra; it is a cornerstone of integration, stability and dignity. In undermining family reunification, the Government risks creating a situation where people who have gone through the difficult process of proving that they should be granted international protection are then actively dissuaded from integrating and contributing to our communities. Surely we can all agree that this is not a worthy aim for a functioning migration policy. On Committee Stage in the Dáil, the Labour Party tabled amendments to delete the proposed two-year waiting period and the financial self-sufficiency measures. Means-testing family reunification is simply wrong in principle.

This Bill massively expands the role of detention in the Irish immigration system and, most shamefully, allows the detention of children. The Government’s suggestion that detention will be used under the Bill only when it is in a minor’s best interests is nothing short of Orwellian doublespeak. International human rights law is clear. The immigration detention of a child is never in their best interests and it is always a violation of the child’s rights. We simply have to ensure that this is not part of this Bill.

There are several areas in which this Bill goes further than what is required under the EU pact. One area that has received significant attention but without any clarity being offered is the Bill’s use of the term “legal counselling”. There is significant confusion and concern from groups working with refugees as to what this would mean in practice for the level of legal support, assistance and representation available to asylum seekers. I argue that they should have access to legal advice from the outset. The Government’s response on this has only muddied the waters further and, if there really is no intention to reduce the levels of support provided, that must be made explicit.

The Bill must also be amended to include vital protections for vulnerable people, particularly the LGBTQ+ community and victims of trafficking. Both of these groups need to be recognised in this Bill as vulnerable and this should be provided for. We look forward to tabling amendments on Committee Stage and having a full debate then.

We all accept that the State needs to manage migration. However, any migration Bill must be grounded in human rights, fairness and the rule of law. It must reflect our obligations under international protection frameworks and indeed our own values, but this Bill raises serious concerns on both points.

I am deeply concerned that key safeguards for vulnerable applicants remain absent, particularly around the provision of age assessment. The provisions are unclear and lack the fundamental child-centred principles required under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under the UNHCR, the age assessment must be child centred and the use of medical exams should be removed. Age assessments must be multidisciplinary, independent and trauma-informed. Without clear statutory safeguards we risk treating children as adults, with profound and lasting consequences.

I will also mention vulnerability assessments. Vulnerability is not a statistic. Survivors of torture, trafficking, gender-based violence and medical trauma may not disclose their experiences at the first interaction with the State. It is a really normal trauma response to not open up about those horrific incidences you have experienced. We need to account for the fact that people do not open up about traumatic incidents in the first instance. We need to account for that in any vulnerability assessment, and for each person to be able to feel safe enough to share that freely and safely. An effective protection system must provide a continuous assessment and appropriate supports throughout the process.

The limitation of oral appeals to circumstances where they are deemed necessary raises serious concerns around fairness. The right to be heard should never be a procedural luxury. It is a core element of natural justice to have fair and unbiased hearing before any decision can be made about an individual. Particularly in protection cases, credibility findings which determine if an application is believable, consistent and plausible can determine a person's safety. An oral hearing should be the norm where facts are disputed.

Information provision to applicants remains vague. There is no clear statutory guarantee that an applicant will receive timely and comprehensive explanations of decisions, appeals rights and deadlines. The idea that we can make a decision without giving any explanation to the applicant seems to be entirely cruel. People navigating the system must clearly understand their rights, their timelines, the obligations on them but also on the State and, crucially, all of the language must be in an accessible format. In the context of people knowing their rights, I note serious concerns have been raised on what is referred to in the legislation as "legal counselling". This is not a term in Irish law. We need to have real clarity on who will provide legal counselling and what qualifications they will have. Can we now guarantee that AI chatbots will not be used, as was initially considered? The idea we would ever consider using AI chatbots for legal counselling is appalling.

This Bill significantly expands the State's powers of detention, particularly in the context of returns procedures, so we need answers on where people will be detained, what the conditions will be like and what the oversight of those centres will be. If the State is to deprive someone of his or her liberty, it must state those clearly, and also the legal basis for that decision, together with having the necessary safeguards.

On Committee Stage, I will bring forward amendments to these incredibly important issues that are at the core of human rights and are central to our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because we cannot allow any legislation that will compound any harm to children who have already been through so much trauma.

When we opened this debate we heard figures of there being 55,000 applications over three years. For perspective, there were 122 million people displaced in 2025 and there are 43.7 million refugees worldwide. We only need to look to see the conflict worldwide and the huge parts of the world that are becoming unlivable due to the climate crisis and, frankly, murderous economic policies in some cases, as well as conflict and war, the responsibility for which needs to be addressed.

Frankly, Ireland, as a country with a significant surplus, must look to the fact we have failed to provide proper provision. It is not acceptable for a country like us to say we are overwhelmed or to suggest that the numbers are high; they are not. They are incredibly low on an international level. The real issues are failure to deliver on housing and health investment and to properly plan. Even as recently as the Housing for All policy, it did not include "all" because it did not look at the very real trends in terms of migration and demographics and plan for them. Instead, those individuals were treated as a crisis rather than a part of our natural responsibilities and our responsibilities under international protection. That was entirely predictable.

Parts of the Bill are shocking. The level of power given to the Minister, immigration officers, gardaí and even civil servants replicates aspects of what we have seen in the United States in relation to ICE. Clearly, there is a different law enforcement culture in this country and we hope it will continue but the foundations within the Bill allow for a shift towards a culture that is more authoritarian. They set in place measures which, under authoritarian instincts or drives, could be misused and could lead to us breaching human rights. As we have seen from events in the United States, the consequences when there is this kind of shift towards authoritarianism resonate far beyond asylum seekers and refugees and into the communities and society we share and the tone of the communities and society we share. This is not hyperbolic.

Let us be specific. Section 22 (5) allows a garda or immigration officer to issue a direction to a non-Irish national registered under the Immigration Act, and their children, to go to an asylum screening centre where they have "reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the best interests of public policy". That is incredibly undefined. It does not refer to "in the public interest", which is a term we have heard previously in legislation and we know how it might be interpreted, but simply in the interests of public policy. That is not a balancing thing. Is that a memo, a press release, a Minister who decided he or she wants to take a hard line? That is concerning and unclear. If anyone refuses to follow such a direction to a screening centre, they can be arrested and detained under section 24. They do not even need to be taken to a screening centre; they can simply put into a place of detention, and we will come to how widely that has been defined later, or even detained in a vehicle for up to 12 hours, under section 24(4)(b).

Again, we have seen in the United States the fishing expeditions in terms of migration and the culture of fear that can create. Anyone who tries to intervene in an arrest, for example tries to indicate an arrest is a case of mistaken identity, can themselves be subject to a 12-month prison sentence. When we look at the protests in the United States against Trump's immigration policies we have seen citizens try to protect their neighbours and loved ones as the policies attack the fabric of their communities and here in Ireland we have seen the distress caused, within schools for example, by the deportation of much-loved members of schools and other communities. Are we now looking at a situation where those who seek to intervene could themselves be liable for prison sentences? This is a dangerous situation where we may see immigration officers locking up non-Irish nationals in cars or random places of detention and those who protest may themselves face, or at least be threatened with, the possibility of prison. It would have a chilling effect on the solidarity we would hope for within society.

The breadth of the powers is significant and raises questions about the relevant training immigration officers may get. Currently, the minister can simply appoint them under section 3 of the Immigration Act. There are none of prerequisite requirements or criteria there that there might be for a member of An Garda Síochána. Will there be a recruitment drive to find the officials for this role? How do we know what the training, experience, backgrounds and motivation of those who take up these roles may be? There are so many areas of concern that I do not have time to discuss them all. I emphasise, especially as the Government plans to bring its own amendments, that there must be sufficient time allocated on Committee Stage and this Bill must not be guillotined. That is crucial.

I will highlight two or three other issues. There are huge concerns about the safety standards of the screening centres and detention facilities. The Minister can designate anywhere to be a screening centre and detention facility. Under section 217, the Minister can engage in contracts. Others have spoken about the huge profiteering and issues about the way it has taken place. For something that has been coming for a long time - the protests in direct provision centres began over a decade ago - the State could have had its own better, properly regulated facilities in place by this point but instead we have continued to move towards the private sector. I am concerned in particular around the role of chief inspector. While it is welcome that he or she can inspect these facilities, we have a litany of reports on previously bad conditions in direct provision. These are much more serious in that they are detention facilities where people are forcibly detained and where there may be a profit and motivation in relation to the detention of persons.

We have seen how that panned out elsewhere. The chief inspector can inspect but does not have enforcement powers. Section 210(2) states:

The Chief Inspector shall not be required to give an account of before a committee for any matter which is or has been, or may be at a future date, the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State.

This is gagging accountability to the Oireachtas. Let us consider our history of detention, the mother and baby homes, etc. Do we want a situation where the chief inspector either cannot be required to or cannot speak to an Oireachtas committee in relation to the conditions they have identified?

I have huge concerns around the screening application process and the fact that children can be subjected to medical assessments on the basis of vaguely defined doubts, including doubts arising on foot of statements they make to civil servants in the Department of justice. The threshold for this is too low. It allows for individual prejudice or misperception on the part of a civil servant to lead to a child not being treated. We should remind ourselves that we not that long ago we voted to put the rights of the child in our Constitution.

I would also question some of the family reunification processes that are proposed, particularly in the context of consistency with the rights of the child, and what we have heard in terms of vulnerability screenings and the fact that people may be protective in their first language. Civil servants will be able to search through the belongings of a person and retain any items in the absence of any clear receipting procedures, even though some of those items may be crucial to a person's application or well-being. There is no adequate healthcare provision. It is not indicated how refugees and-----

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir.

-----those who are in need of medical need will receive treatment. Again, the EU reception conditions directive refers to necessary healthcare, whereas the Bill only provides for health assessment in cases where there is a need for urgent healthcare. That does not cover all of necessary healthcare.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir.

I am coming to a conclusion. Crucially, there are no provisions in respect of free legal advice. There is the undefined term "legal counsel", as others have said, and the absolutely disgraceful idea that there was consideration given to looking at chatbots in the context of giving people advice that may determined their lives.

I flag the fact that I will be commenting further on facial image data.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadór.

I will also be looking at safe countries. I will finish with a single sentence. I will list all of the issues we can deal with on Committee Stage. Crucially, however, we need to learn from what is happening in life and, indeed, in some European countries and not go into a world with that line uttered by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, which I am still chilled by, namely, "I am committed to ensuring that Ireland is not viewed more favourably than the UK by those seeking to claim asylum." We do not want to enter-----

Seanadóir Higgins, gabhaim buíochas leat.

-----a performative cruelty contest whereby we try to ensure that those fleeing situations of fear and terror are subjected to fear and difficulty when they are going through the immigration process. It was mentioned that we are unique. We are unique because we are a country that has the experience of being colonised and of sending millions of our own citizens abroad in situations of distress. Let us look to dignity, warmth and kindness in terms of how we receive people and not to a frame of management, performative cruelty or dissuasion.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in today. We must help those who are genuinely fleeing war or persecution, but those who are not genuine asylum seekers must be quickly identified and removed from the State. It is not fair to the Irish taxpayer to expect them to foot the bill for people seeking asylum even though they have no entitlement to it or where they are attempting to defraud the State. There is also the issue that has become a very lucrative spin-off industry, which is accommodation, and it is driven by huge profiteering.

The timelines in this Bill are deeply concerning. Section 110 refers to a six-month examination period, yet allows for extensions that can extend the process to 21 months. Add in appeals and judicial reviews, and we could see cases unresolved for years on end. The Bill allows for an extension where complex issues of fact or law are in question. That is incredibly open-ended and likely to be abused. It sends out the message that Ireland is a light touch when it comes to illegal immigration.

I am incredibly worried about the intention to increase reliance on Tusla for vulnerability assessments and the safeguarding of minors. Tusla is already under immense pressure in the context of its core child protection role. Since 2021, 121 cases of children under the case of Tusla and subjected to sexual abuse have been referred to the Garda. This is a systemic issue, but nothing has been done. The Government continues to outsource the care of vulnerable children to private, for-profit companies. What can go wrong? Things have gone wrong, and that set to continue. What measures are in place to prevent adult asylum seekers whose ages cannot be verified from being housed in the same accommodation as children? There are staff in Tusla who do not have the necessary qualifications to even work with children. The Government has offered no reassurances when it comes to increasing funding or staffing for Tusla, so how can we be expected to vote in favour of a Bill that does not prioritise the safety of vulnerable children? To see the Government vote against an amendment on community impact assessments last week was shocking. Our schools, GP services, housing supply and local infrastructure are already stretched in many areas. How could anyone oppose an assessment of services in an area before the opening of an asylum centre? That goes against all logical reasoning.

I cannot support the Bill in its current form. I will be tabling amendments. Given how the Government guillotined the debate on the Bill in the Dáil, I do not believe the Minister is open to input. However, I hope to be proven wrong.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit as ucht teacht os ár gcomhair inniu agus an Bille seo a leagan amach. Ní thógfaidh mé mórán ama ag dul ar ais ar phointí a rinne Seanadóirí eile inniu.

There are some things that Senator Higgins said that I concur with and welcome, particularly in the context of kindness, humanity, respect and all of those virtues that are an inherent part of most of the people in our country. The Government is to be commended on what it is trying to do. In political discourse, we often hear the expression "They are damned if they do and damned if they don't." The whole business of immigration and the migration of peoples that has become part and parcel of life over the past 15 years or so is something we have struggled with and made brave efforts to contend with. We all know in our heart of hearts, however, that what we have at the moment is not entirely satisfactory.

The explanatory memorandum to the Bill indicates that the IPAS legislation was enacted in 2015. I refer to the new proposals in relation to the current Bill that the Minister of State has brought to us today. The purpose of the Bill is to regularise the position in the context of EU Directive 2024/1346 and EU regulations 2024/1347, 2024/1348, 2024/1350, 2024/1351, 2024/1358 and 2024/1359. That list tells the story that the Bill is an effort on the part of the Government to move on a strategic plan for dealing with immigration and asylum seeking that is quite different from what pertained in 2015 compared with what we have now.

Most of us in the Chamber would claim that we are good republicans. Des O'Malley famously said, "I stand by the Republic". All of us here who stand by the Republic today would have to aver that we would be happy to champion the rights of people trying to make a better life for themselves in this country. I am absolutely sure that the vast majority of people in the country are pervaded by a sense of humanity and welcome, but they do not want a farrago of regulations that are not fit for purpose. That is why I commend the Bill. It is good, insofar as it goes. I am sure there are imperfections in it, but I commend the Minister and the Minister of State on the fact that they and the Government have tried to address a very testing problem regarding the whole business of people coming in from abroad.

We heard some references to the possibility of a united Ireland. To have a united Ireland, we have to have respect for the people in other communities as well. It sends a very bad signal if we cannot get regularised legislation here that will bring decency and speed to the way people are processed in the context of their attempt to get a better life here.

From from looking at the progress of the Bill through the Lower House, such as it was, I note that 14 amendments out of about 300 were dealt with. That is a strike rate of about 5%. I do not think that really does justice to the importance of the legislation. It would be remiss of the Government and the Minister if more time were not given to the concerns of Members of this House when it comes to Committee Stage.

I am also concerned regarding the option for asylum seekers and people who are migrating here to avail of free legal aid. In the context of the few people in Waterford I have tried to get legal aid for, it has been quite a struggle. If this burden is imposed on the legal aid system, there will be a need for serious investment to deal with the problems that will ensue.

I am more than happy to give my blessing to this legislation. It tackles a very vexed problem that is troubling all of Europe. Standing together with the other nations in Europe is the right way to go. I would be hopeful that what we will get at the end of the day will be a decent Act that will fit the bill.

Níl aon dabht ach go bhfuil athchoiriú ag teastáil sa chóras cosanta idirnáisiúnta. There is no doubt we do need reform and certainly it is across the EU and at EU level that we need to make those changes. There can be no failure to recognise the modern nature of asylum or to plan for a system that responds to the reality of asylum, particularly in light of the volatile geopolitical situation across the world and migration that is driven by climate breakdown. The asylum and migration pact, although imperfect, is important and ensures that the EU works together. Going it alone like the UK did, as we can see, brings with it problems and makes things worse. The question of how this reform is implemented, with wider reforms being brought forward at the same time, is where we are at. We need to be extremely careful. We in Ireland have the benefit of being able to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, including the UK, regarding what is effective, what is compassionate, what is fair and what does not work.

Speaking objectively, there are elements in this Bill that are needed. With it, the Government is attempting to address two decades of policy failure that led to an IP system which left people waiting years for decisions about their status. It is a system that buckled when Ireland started to experience the same IP levels as other European countries, a situation that was compounded by the war in Ukraine. This was a perfect storm; a confluence of factors that are very challenging to manage. Given the tone of debates around migration and the heightened context under which this Bill has come before us, with regular social media posts of deportations and deportation flights, it is our duty, as Opposition Senators, to ask whether we are solely advancing solutions to real-world problems or bringing forward policies that are more to do with playing to a particular political line than improving our system. If it is the latter, what will be the consequences for those whom this claims to serve? I met with the Irish Red Cross today. I share the concerns of the coalitions of civil society organisations that have raised their concerns about this Bill. What will be the consequences for our country of focusing on areas where problems do not exist, like the draconian family reunification changes that were not even required under the pact, while failing to focus on acute problems like the reception and accommodation side?

I need to call out persistent efforts by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to muddy the waters about the approach taken to these issues by the previous Government, under which responsibility for immigration control, the International Protection Office, the refugee appeals tribunals and decisions on visas and family unification policy all remained with the Department of justice. The one area moved to the Department of children was responsibility for accommodation for people who were seeking international protection. The rules around family reunification are being tightened for no real reason. There is no requirement in this regard in the EU pact. There is a diminution of legal advices, which tests the limit of established due process, and there are fully desk-based reviews with no oral hearings. In this Bill, some of that is formalised into new structures that look to weigh the balance against someone seeking to access refuge here. While this may be a signal that the Government wants to send in today's debate, it is storing up new problems for the future and penalising people in desperate situations for no real policy benefit.

We do need reform. We need decisions to be made efficiently and quickly. I want to acknowledge that following investment on the part of the previous Government, the IPO is delivering its decisions on status in a manner that is far more timely. However, we have to separate out the policy we need from the policy that plays well in political theatre. This means adopting the pact and making our decisions more efficient, but it also calls for the Government to preserve basic legal human rights. It calls for the Government to place the same relentless focus on the accommodation side, as has been mentioned by others, and to move as quickly as possible away from private providers. It calls for broader procedure that does not involve the incarceration of minors and their guardians.

We have seen no progress, in any real terms, on the roll-out of State accommodation. The cold house approach, the kind of hostile environment beloved of the Tories in the UK, is not supported by evidence. Look at the post-Brexit numbers in the UK. The Minister of State knows as well as I that overriding factors determining IP numbers to Ireland are decisions made at the Cabinet table in Downing Street. Right now, the numbers are lower. The relentless pressure felt previously by my colleague Deputy Roderic O'Gorman in seeking to source accommodation has lessened somewhat. This is an opportunity. With lower numbers of arrivals, the Government has been given a moment in which to act decisively. While our IP decision system must be more efficient - and that will reduce numbers overall - we must not fail to take advantage of the lower arrival numbers to change the accommodation system. If we begin the move away from expensive private providers of IP accommodation and embed a system of long-term State-led provision, we will find ourselves in a much better position to deal with future challenges. I think the Minister of State would recognise that this is the way forward and that we cannot continue to rely on these private providers.

I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage, when we will also be tabling amendments. We have to realise that these waves of migration are going to continue because of climate change and conflict around the world. We have to have a system that is fair and compassionate for all.

I thank the Senators for today's debate and productive engagement. It is fair to say that this is an area where there has been a real range of engagement this evening. We really get the breadth and depth of opinion. I welcome the opportunity to conclude by commenting on some of the individual issues . I also want to take the opportunity to talk about one or two more general matters.

Whether we are talking about this Bill or any other matters, it is important to recognise that we are part of Europe. Some people do not seem to get that. Europe is not something that is out there. We are part of it. We are a member state. We are involved in its decision-making. We pool our sovereignty and work together. We are an integral part of the European Union. The vast majority of Irish people are in favour of that. The benefits to us, as a nation, on so many levels, not just economically, have been incredibly positive.

Unfortunately, there are no Sinn Féin Senators here. However, a general point that is sort of thrown out all the time - they also make a certain point about the EU - relates to the idea that you solve everything through unity. They tried one approach to unity for decades. It did not work and caused nothing but absolute hardship to our nation. We are not going to get instant unity, and we need solutions that we can implement.

I do not think there is a person in the House who does not want to see Irish unity but we need to do things in the interim. You cannot just throw on the cloak of unity and think that is a solution.

As to the general principle, in my belief and that of the Minister, trying to improve the system is at the heart of what we are doing. We are not doing it for any other reason. I will focus on the specifics. I know there is scepticism about the pact's measures and there were calls for Ireland to reverse its position and opt out of the measures. Both Houses of the Oireachtas have backed the Government's proposal to opt into this pact because it introduces faster processing of asylum claims and a more effective and efficient system. Faster processing will mean applicants spend less time in IPAS accommodation.

No.

Fundamentally, that is good for the applicant and good for the State. There are huge benefits, which is why we have chosen to opt in. There is a point I would make, one that I think Senator Gallagher made in his contribution as well. We have seen the one state that thought it could go off and do this on its own, namely, leave the European Union and devise a totally independent one-off solution, bring absolute chaos onto itself by trying to do that.

Senator Higgins and I have a lot of differences of opinion on the nuances of where we are going with this, but anyone who believes we are not trying to manage this in the context of a global movement of people is trying to deceive themselves of reality. The pact underpins the fundamental rights of applicants. It has more effective screening and a vulnerability assessment system and introduces a new independent rights monitor, all of which are positive on one level. It also delivers faster processing for the State. It makes no sense for us to want to opt out.

The common travel area was mentioned by a number of contributors. We have good relations with the UK. We work consistently with UK authorities. We want to make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not weaken the integrity of the common travel area. Let us be honest about this - if there is a faster, fairer and more effective system for dealing with migration here, that helps to manage the common travel area. When people arrive, we are able to deal with them in a faster, fairer and more efficient way. That strengthens the common travel area as well as our involvement with our European partners.

There are a number of other matters. I will go through them. Age assessment will only take place where there are substantial doubts about the age of an applicant. The determination of age will not rely on a single test. A medical examination will only be used as a last resort where other assessments are inconclusive. The aim of the process is to ensure children are identified appropriately, enable them to avail of the rights and guarantees provided to minors during the asylum process, and ensure adults wrongly claiming to be minors are identified early and placed in appropriate accommodation.

Legal counsel was mentioned in a couple of contributions. Legal counsel will not be provided to international protection applicants as a replacement for civil legal aid. Legal counsel is to be provided as an additional service to inform applicants of asylum procedures, their rights and what to expect from the process. It will be provided at the earliest possible stages after the application for international protection is made and will be available to the applicant throughout the process. Applicants will remain entitled to apply for civil legal aid in the exact same manner they are today, including access to legal advice and representation. The eligibility of international protection applicants for legal advice and legal aid is provided for under the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 and regulations under that. That is why the specific provisions for legal aid do not appear in this Bill or in the International Protection Act. I stress that applicants will have the opportunity to avail of legal counsel on a one-on-one, in-person basis. Online services may be made available as a complementary or initial source of information but the applicant will be able to avail of one-on-one counsel. That enhances services, adding extra layers that are of benefit.

Detention of minors will only take place in exceptional circumstances and as a measure of last resort. The Bill provides for a very limited set of circumstances in which a minor may be detained for a screening process for the purposes of determining or verifying the identify or nationality of a minor where less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively and where detention has been assessed as in the child's best interest. All of these requirements must be met before a minor can be detained. Minors may only be detained for the shortest possible period in a place appropriate to their needs. The amendments to be introduced on Committee Stage to give effect to the reception conditions directive in relation to detention will clearly provide for the safeguards to be set out in that directive. I reiterate that this Bill does not permit the routine detention of minors and it will not become a feature of our international protection system.

The Sinn Féin representatives made a number of contributions on the cost of IPAS. Some concerns were recognised by other Senators. Since the day I became a Minister of State in this area, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I have been committed to introducing cost-effective solutions for international protection accommodation. We introduced a new rate card in May 2025 and we are driving down the costs. We are adding publicly owned beds to the system. The acquisition of Citywest Hotel added approximately an additional 4,000 publicly owned beds. I agree that the long-term, best, most efficient way of delivering international protection is to have the maximum amount of State-owned accommodation to keep costs as low as possible. We will probably never be able to do it exclusively by the State, so we will have that mix. That is where the rate card is so important because we must drive down commercial costs where they have been incurred. We are determined to do that. Senator Noonan's colleague, the former Minister, had the experience of the costs being driven up because the numbers went up exponentially. The most successful way of dealing with costs in IPAS is to bring the overall number down, which is what the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I are focused on, and to ensure that instead of people being in the system for years, they are only in it for weeks. People will go through much faster and there will be an overall reduction in numbers.

In relation to family reunification, I hear the argument. I do not buy into the clichés of performative cruelty or anything like that but I hear the genuine concerns raised by Senators. We are trying to create a balance. We are talking about the right of people to come in and have family reunification. We want to see that done in a way that allows for family reunification but does not incur an open-ended cost on the State. It is trying to get that balance right. That is why we brought in those changes. It is not to say we are opposed to the concept of family reunification, do not recognise it or do not believe it is important but we cannot just disregard - I am sorry to the Senators who think you can - the actual cost of family reunification. We must make sure that we, on behalf of the taxpayers and as the Government of this country, strike that balance between the right to family reunification and the cost to the State.

The assessment of the best interests of the child was also raised. I do not believe it would be necessary to have the overarching assessment that was mentioned by some people. The Bill clearly provides for certain provisions related to the treatment of minors at risk and where those minors' interests must be considered.

The impact of IPAS accommodations on communities was mentioned. There is an impact of IPAS on communities. The best way to deal with that is the International Protection Bill, which will bring down the numbers, get people through the system faster and have more State-owned accommodation, which will enable us to be in a position to return to the community the facilities currently used as IPAS centres. It will take a while; it is not going to be instant or overnight. If this Bill delivers, which we believe it will, we will have a more firm, fair and effective system and therefore will not have the same requirements.

In the interim, we are empowering the community engagement teams to deal directly with communities and local representatives and ensure much better engagement with local communities.

The issue of fundamental rights was mentioned. The Bill is firmly rooted in Ireland's obligations under the Constitution and international law to protect the fundamental right of those seeking international protection. As I said to the House at the start, we are not moving away from that. We accept the right, believe in it and want to manage it as well as possible.

I have probably missed one or two points and I apologise to Senators if I have. I was trying to keep a note. I thank everyone for their engagement on the Bill. My belief and that of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, is that our primary purpose is to ensure we have a fair but firm international protection system. We do not want to conflate provisions in the Bill with employment visas or anything like those. This is a Bill dealing with international protection and I believe it achieves its aims while providing a high level of certainty and clarity, not just for the State but also for the applicants. I look forward to working with the Senators to address the amendments they may have. I thank them very much for their contributions today.

I thank the Minister of State.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.