Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 38.
“That is why what Senator Stephenson has done is to focus on some of the fundamental issues. Among the many detailed recommendations people have made, we have recommendations about receipts when people search people's possessions and recommendations about the detail of reception conditions. Those detailed proposals and ideas that people have put forward for making the law better will not be got to. It is appropriate then that we have had a discussion from Senator Stephenson on some of the core of this. Our human rights law might not have come from Mount Sinai, where others may take their direction while some of us may take direction from the international courts, but it comes from our learning. It comes from the Second World War. It comes from the knowledge of what went before it.”
“I will be brief because I am conscious of the many other amendments we need to get to but I want to indicate my full support for Senator Stephenson's amendment. The Minister suggested it is a pity if we do not get to everything. It is not a pity; it is a choice. We have spoken of one amendment at length, and what of the others? I did the calculation. What was allowed for was just over one minute per amendment. There is no way, in the way that this has been designed, that all amendments would be got to. We should not contribute to, not greenwashing but democracy-washing, where we suggest it is a little bit unfortunate that the debate ran out. The Minister loves debate so much and loves talking about the issues but time ran out. It is a choice. It is a choice to curtail debate. It is a choice to not allow for it.”
“I urge the Minister to listen to that and accept, at a minimum, an amendment that allows him to review how those mistakes may pan out over the period ahead.”
“That idea of a legal limbo that you place children into before acknowledging the physical fact that they are in your country and seeking safety - that very premise is in itself a deeply concerning step away from the rights of the child, and not just the rights of the child but of real children, who are real, who will be in Ireland, who are physically within our country and whom we have responsibility for. We are going to be placing them in a legal limbo where they may or may not be getting adequate care, may be subjected to detention and may experience fear and trauma that could be avoided. Those matters are identified by the person responsible for telling the State when it is making a mistake.”
“This is an abhorrent violation of their rights which can never be considered to be in their best interests. The ombudsman also goes forward to the fact of the system itself, that it a second-tier system. The asylum border procedure has this legal fiction which allows states to expand powers of detention and effectively act as if those who arrived in Ireland are in some limbo, not outside the law, not yet in the asylum-seeking system but in this pre-system, this system that is somehow outside of what your rights should be in terms of seeking asylum.”
“They are not just talking about a few inadvertent effects, what if a guardian is not good enough or what if the numbers are wrong, or even the specific issue I mentioned in respect of age assessment. The ombudsman is extremely clear. The fact of this being guillotined in the Seanad was mentioned in the letter as not being in the best interests of the child. Literally, it is not just bad for democracy but it is not in the best interests of the child when legislation which affects children is being guillotined. That in itself was a breach in terms of the responsibility to the best interests of the child. Crucially, they name the fact that this Bill will for the first time in Ireland make it legally possible to detain children who are seeking asylum.”
“Medical age assessment is a significantly wrong approach and has been found to be so by the UN Committee on Rights of the Child and marked as such by human rights and children's rights bodies. We are very concerned. We will have amendments which we may come to later. The approach to age assessment that is being set out in this Bill is extremely dangerous, damaging and deeply inappropriate. We will later press a specific amendment. That is the kind of issue that could be highlighted in this report, along with the issues we have highlighted otherwise, such as the idea that there would be individuals with responsibility for up to 30 unaccompanied minors, and that this would be the low level of support as children seek to navigate the system. I want to go back to the ombudsperson because it is really important.”
“The Ombudsman for Children tells us that they are concerned, if the legislation is passed in its current form, that children seeking asylum in Ireland could be more vulnerable than ever before to breaches of their rights. I am going to highlight just one of the issues in relation to this. It is an issue which the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also highlighted. Age assessments should only be utilised as a measure of last resort when there are serious substantiated doubts about a child's age. That is not the threshold in the Bill. Rather, an age assessment can simply be triggered by any matter that gives rise to a doubt as to the age of an applicant, by any civil servant, garda, immigration officer or even persons contracted under the Act to deliver its purposes or functions.”
“We also made a collective decision through a referendum not that long ago that the rights of the child should be enshrined in the Irish Constitution. The rights of the child are not just something at the UN level; the State has put the question and been given the message from the entire public of Ireland that the rights of the child are something that should be respected in all points. That is why there is a particular onus on the Government to listen. The ombudsman is the person who is entrusted with reflecting those issues of the rights of the child, which again are not just there in the background but are fundamentally core to Ireland's Constitution and were chosen as a matter of such urgency as to be added to our Constitution by the Irish public.”
“As I said before, the decision to guillotine this legislation raises huge questions in terms of how the powers in it may be manifested and how they will be used. We cannot give the benefit of the doubt in respect of the many ambiguous powers that are within this legislation, if the legislation itself is not even being subjected to proper scrutiny and debate. I proposed this morning that this would be adjourned rather than concluded. I believe it was a wrong decision to force through the guillotine in this case. I also want to speak specifically in support of amendment No. 272, which looks for a report in relation to the legislation and in particular its adherence to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That convention is a fundamental document but it is not just about the UN convention.”
“A huge number of proposals came through that were not subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny and were not discussed in the Dáil and that have then come through on Committee Stage - we had 70 pages of amendments - and now a large number of amendments have been brought through again on Report Stage. It is not just poor practice; it is abnormal practice. It is not normal, expected or proper parliamentary practice. As others have said, we are bicameral. The Seanad has a mandate and the public have a right, which is crucial. It is not just our mandate and our right to scrutinise it. It is our obligation. The public have an entitlement to have legislation that is going to be impactful scrutinised and properly laid out.”
“I stand in support of both of these amendments. It is a very clear point in terms of democracy when you have vast areas of what is meant to be our collective decision-making process in the Parliament, including a variety of significant proposals with huge impacts on people's lives, that effectively are being pushed through at the last minute and that are not being allowed a guarantee of debate or proper time for discussion. We have had previous Bills on which the Minister has come in almost a dozen times but yet on this Bill, where again the timeline is June and July not April, it seems that the curtailing of debate is designed to avoid proper scrutiny.”
“Yet we are still seeing no inspections of the flights that are landing in Ireland, and no measures to address the known and documented overflights of weapons that have taken place through Irish airspace. Again, on a separate but linked issue, we do not really know what is happening with overflights or landings in the current conflict in the Middle East. I ask that the Leader arrange a debate in these Houses on military flights, overflights, landings and what measures the State is taking to protect our neutrality and our compliance with international law. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Transport to discuss that matter with the Houses.”
“Next, I ask the Leader to arrange a debate for after the recess. The Brussels court of appeal in Belgium has found the Belgian state to be in violation of its obligations under international law and, therefore, domestic law, which recognises international law, by its permitting of overflights, of arms transfers to Israel, over its territory. This is overflights and not landings. The ruling of the court of appeal points to the measures in the January 2024 court finding which established the credible risk of genocide. This is one of a number of serious and high-level court rulings right across Europe on the clear message that we should not be complicit in the transfer of arms, and that states have a responsibility to ensure they are not complicit.”
“I became aware of the Catalpa story through an extraordinary play by Donal O'Kelly. The play is a wonderful one-man show that tells the story of the Catalpa and brought everything very much to life. If it is decided to mark the anniversary, perhaps Donal O'Kelly would be willing to revive his show. It is one of the most striking plays that I have seen and gives a deep insight into history. I wish to formally propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that the International Protection Bill 2026 would adjourn rather than conclude at the end of the discussion today.”
“Crucially, though, the Minister for justice's proposal seems to be locating it in the justice system. It would, therefore, be back in that adversarial space in the family courts whereas what Senator Ruane is doing would locate it in Revenue, as we have seen in other jurisdictions. We would have Revenue assessing what is fair in terms of contributions and maintenance payments. It is important that the women's caucus previously supported this Bill. It would be really positive if we saw, as we did in that previous term, that same cross-party commitment to moving forward on an issue that has a really important gender equality dimension to it. I am very proud to second the proposed amendment. I commend Senator Ruane on the work she has done to bring it to this point.”
“Situations where one parent ends up effectively doing the majority of the parenting come up time and again. One thing we hear about is the maintenance payments. In fact, they have in many cases become a penalty, with people having their social welfare payments reduced because they are theoretically getting maintenance payments that were ordered towards them. We have heard about all of those problems. What Senator Ruane came up with and has worked on for years in incredible detail is a mechanism and tool that can and will work. It has a calculation tool in it. We have heard an indication now from the Government that it is looking at a calculation tool that seems to be quite similar in some senses to the very detailed and fair calculation tool developed by Senator Ruane with the legal experts.”
“I want to formally second the amendment by Senator Ruane to the Order of Business to propose that the Child Maintenance Bill 2026 be taken before No. 1. This Bill has been an incredible and rigorous piece of work spanning almost three Oireachtas terms. I have watched as Senator Ruane has engaged with the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, and all the relevant stakeholders. In the last term, we had full support from the women's caucus right across the Oireachtas for this measure. We hear time and again about the importance of lone parents and the fact that many single parent-headed households are in consistent poverty. The figures there are always much higher in terms of homelessness and poverty, including in our wealth surveys.”
“I am reading from section 210(2). It refers to "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." That will cover any matter that may be controversial or subject in the future to any kind of court or tribunal. I do not believe that is good practice. The chief inspector should not have such a broad preclusion where they are allowed to give account of issues without having such a clear get-out clause from future accountability. We do not need to go into further detail on this but it is important to place it on the record.”
“Will the Minister confirm that the chief inspector is limited in their ability to report to or speak to committees of the Oireachtas? I do not actually think it is a replacement if we have a chief inspector who is not free to speak to an Oireachtas committee or to testify before it.”
“I have a single extra sentence that relates directly to this. In the mechanism in the Bill that refers to a chief inspector, there is not clarity with regard to the powers that the chief inspector will have., Crucially, there seems to be a gagging mechanism in the Bill that will make the chief inspector unable to answer to Oireachtas committees. Unless we have a report structure, we are in danger that the chief inspector inspecting these places of residence will be precluded by the Bill from properly answering to a committee.”
“If the Minister is not willing to allow us proper debate on each of those issues as they evolve throughout the Bill, the minimum is that we would have the chance to discuss a report on how this has played out subsequently.”
“Something else that is touched on in the Bill that we have not had any opportunity to discuss in the context of humane treatment in detention is the accommodation material reception conditions. There has been no discussion or scrutiny of those issues. I will not go over them again, but the powers of detention we have talked about potentially stretch to lawful citizens as well. We mentioned that those executing these powers potentially might not have to identify themselves and might be able to search and enter private homes without warrant, and search without warrant the belongings of persons and potentially remove items without even the basics of a receipting system attached to it. There are huge questions with regard to national law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Charter that are correctly named by Senator Boyhan.”
“I strongly support this amendment from Senator Boyhan. I urge the Minister to accept it. As has been pointed out, it is an obligation that is there. Given that there are so many issues we will not get to discuss, at a minimum we should be in a position to discuss how the concerns we have identified have played out in the report. On humane treatment, there are provisions for the thresholds for medical age assessments for children and how that will be applied. There are provisions and questions on care and medical care for those applicants who may have medical care needs, and even unsuccessful applicants who may be facing deportation and may seek the removal of medical care. That is an issue that would need to be addressed.”
“For clarity, I already acknowledged that the issue of language and understanding is there. That is the reason we were asking why it is not there in relation to amendment No. 37. I know it is in other areas. I am just looking for the same provision that the Minister rightly said is so important in other areas in order that it would also be there at the key point when a person is informed of the obligation to go to the screening centre. It could be a garda or an immigration officer. It is not necessarily at the International Protection Office.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Will a member of the public in Ireland who steps in in a situation where they see what looks like, and may well be, a situation of racial or ethnic profiling now become vulnerable to arrest? Will that be the threat to ensure we make it difficult for people to stand in solidarity with others? The scenes we see are scenes that are possible. The scene we see today in a guillotining of legislation does not give confidence.”
“I want to indicate now that there are also provisions in the Bill on which I may bring amendments on Report Stage such as one stating "A person shall not obstruct or hinder a member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer engaged in the performance of a function under this section." Let us look at that. We do not know who the immigration officers will be. We know that they have huge powers and we have been told not to look at ICE as it is not like that. No it is not because in the case of ICE, members of the public have stepped in in situations where they have seen abuse of power, where they have seen powers used wrongly or where they have seen detention of persons whose names the immigration officers do not even know but where the officers clearly are engaged in racial profiling.”
“This is to ensure we do not have the separation of parents from children and to ensure we do not have children in terror detained for some of the reasons, by the way, that are very weak. One reason for detaining is to determine or verify the identity or nationality of the minor. Is this going to be a fishing expedition? That is what the Bill allows. Applicants who are not criminals, either adults or children, can be detained to determine or verify their identity or nationality so we can just take people in and tell them we want to spend a couple of days figuring out where we think they are from. That will be done in a context of detention rather than correctly, as it should be done, through the application process. That is not adequate grounds or a basis for detention for an adult and particularly not for a child.”
“If the Government is choosing to deny full scrutiny of the Oireachtas to large and vast amounts of substantial amendments - there are 70 pages of Government amendments - by guillotining the legislation, then the Minister does not get to also roll in with the narrative that this is general and middle of the road and we know how we are and we are generally decent people where we all give each other the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt is lost. We cannot have confidence because if the Minister is applying this approach to the legislation, which is a poor approach that cuts corners on proper process, then it will not be reflected in how the measures in the Bill are being implemented. This is why people are putting forward extraordinarily reasonable amendments in an attempt to build in the safeguards that the Bill should have.”
“The huge appeal from the Minister we are hearing again and again is that it is not envisaged that this would go wrong, it is not envisaged that the worst interpretation would be made of the powers that are being made and it is not envisaged that the safeguards would be necessary. Frankly, we cannot give the benefit of the doubt. We cannot give the benefit of the doubt because we are looking at legislation that is being guillotined.”
“As my colleague, Senator Black, has spoken to our amendments in the section, I will not reiterate all the points. As the Minister has heard multiple times, the key questions and the key issues are that it is never in the best interests of the child to have detention. There is strong feeling that the safeguards are not adequate in relation to the protection of the rights. It is not clear who will be determining these. As the Minister said, the Bill provides for this to be contracted. That may not be the Minister's intention but contracting out is provided for. What are the mechanisms to be used to assess the best interests of the child? It may be the Garda Síochána or it may be contracted out; it is not clear. What training will they have in relation to engaging with children? We do not know.”
“It is not exactly "skills and expertise", but it is "qualifications and expertise" and, to an extent, that covers the same area. I am concerned that the caseload is not going to be manageable given some very serious potential constraints on the rights of children in other aspects of the Bill.”
“There are also issues in relation to family reunification and the limits on that in terms of who can be reunited in the case of a minor child. Because they are not explicitly named as issues within the functions here, perhaps the Minister would confirm that they would be supported to navigate all those aspects. We may not get to the family reunification piece because of the guillotining of the Bill, which is shameful, but that will be a particular issue for vulnerable children. The current family reunification system is very limited and deals with a spouse, children or parent. It excludes, for example, the sibling of a minor child. I do appreciate the Minister's response yesterday. I recognise that some of the areas we have been concerned about being removed from section 44 have been brought into section 47.”
“I will be brief because we have so much to go through. Again, I just want to echo the concerns about the caseload of 30. We would regard 30 in a classroom as a very high number for individuals to manage, and we are talking about 30 very vulnerable minors, potentially with very complex needs. It is hard to see how their best interests could be represented with such a caseload, in particular as there are other parts in the Bill, which we may get to discuss later - or perhaps not as it is being guillotined - that will deeply affect minors, including provisions relating to the restriction of movement and the detention of minors who have committed no crimes or offence. They are simply seeking to exercise their right to seek asylum and they deserve the support of the State. Those provisions are extremely concerning.”
“If we have a Minister who will not give the respect to Parliament of even accounting for his decisions on the legislation, how are we going to be confident that the very serious powers being granted in this Bill are not going to be used in a manner that brings us towards authoritarianism? There is an architecture in that Bill which, if used wrongly, would facilitate authoritarian actions like we have seen around the world. We have to hope it will not be, but confidence has to be much lessened by the fact we are not even able to talk about the Bill fully. I propose the amendment and I urge that contact be made and pressure be coming to make sure the debate is adjourned and the Bill properly scrutinised.”
“Of course, we have a Bill that in itself is going to chip away and give very serious and, in some cases, quite draconian powers to new kinds of officials appointed in new ways and thereby erode some of the checks, balances and protections that are part of our international protection system. That is why the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the human rights bodies and everybody else have been sending us their detailed work and scrutiny on how we can fix this legislation to make it any good. We are skipping past all of that. We have to ask questions about this slide.”
“We are not here just to give little announcements and speeches. We are meant to be doing to the job of legislators. At a time when democracy is under attack around the world, it is crucial that we do not let it be eroded. We had lectures yesterday about how sovereignty is there because we exercise sovereignty in the Parliament. I believe that but we are not being allowed to do it when we are not allowed to scrutinise legislation. It is very serious when we cut things short in this way. When we look at Hungary and the attempts that were made in Poland, or when we look across the water to the United States, everywhere we see that the chipping away of checks and balances in our parliamentary system is serious.”
“We are going to have a guillotine imposed on a massive Bill, which is going to be life or death for some people. It is not normal. I want those Senators who entered politics - I think most people enter it in this way - in good faith because they want to be public representatives and part of parliamentary democracy to say, "Please, start standing up for parliamentary democracy".”
“It is important to note that this is not normal. Some Senators have been in previous Oireachtais with me. I have been in three now. Some Senators are new but we need to note the kind of parliamentary action we are seeing, and the curtailing of parliamentary scrutiny we have seen. I refer to a situation where a Government brings 70 pages of its own amendments and then guillotines the debate after just two sessions. It cuts short the debate so that the vast majority of Government amendments will never be discussed. They were not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. They were not discussed in the Dáil and they are not going to be discussed here. The amendments that we bring - which the Government could bring, by the way - are not going to be discussed either.”
“I formally propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that the International Protection Bill will not conclude at 4 p.m. but will adjourn at that time. I propose that formally and it will be seconded by my colleague Senator Black.”
“This concerns that kind of scenario if we have a contract of services. The Minister can understand that this is not a reflection on officials or An Garda Síochána doing their job now; this is a concern about the new proposed methodology for the appointment of immigration officers, which is through a contract of service, and that is where we want clarity on the training and on exactly who they will be.”
“Could the Minister also address the question we raised around training? While he referenced officials from the Department, An Garda Síochána and the performance of their powers, our concern relates to the new powers. Sometimes we talk about how something is now and say that is why we should not be concerned about the new thing we are going to do, but the new thing is a new thing. We are talking about contracting. This is a change where we are talking about contracting for services. That is why we need a bit more clarity about exactly who will be contracted. Could it be private contracting? Where will the accountability be in that? How do we avoid, for example, perverse incentives? We have seen with ICE where there are quotas for how many people their agents have managed to detain.”
“I appreciate the Minister is indicating that this is provided for in the 2004 Act, but the problem is that it is limited to the functions of the 2004 Act, so it would need to be explicitly inserted in this Bill. We are very happy to engage with the Minister and find an agreed location for that point, but it is crucial that it be named and included. If the simple issue is around the location of it, let us work together to find another location. I do not want us to come to Report Stage and end up with a Bill that does not do this. Could the Minister indicate if he is happy to work between Committee and Report Stages to ensure that we find an agreed and appropriate location, or, indeed, a wording? We have tried to go as closely as possible to the language of the 2004 Act.”
“It also does not require and set out a requirement that they will be willing to identify themselves if requested by a person who is affected or, indeed, that they will provide their warrant of appointment or a copy of it to that person. I would like the Minister to clarify these issues, particularly those in relation to the training and concerning the question of whether there is a willingness to extend the same basic requirement that is in the Immigration Act 2004 into this Act.”
“Will they be moving separately and freely, as we have seen in the case of ICE in America, where they operate in a completely separate system? Where will the accountability be? It is critically important, however likely or unlikely the Minister might think these scenarios may be, that we look to what the Bill provides for and what it does not provide for. Right now, the Bill provides for very wide-ranging and significant powers for individuals who are appointed as immigration officers. What it does not allow for is clarity around exactly how they will be trained and whether they will be public employees or may be privately contracted.”