Colm Brophy
Dublin South-West · Fine Gael · Ireland
“The Minister has outlined very clearly our intention in relation to this matter. We have always been very clear that the ARP would be a temporary provision. It was introduced in 2022 as a response to a crisis, always with the view that it would be phased out. That remains the case.”
“It is important to look at the ARP in the context of what is happening here. We are reducing the payment back to the original rate in order to fulfil the original intention. We thank the people for the generosity they showed in opening their homes to Ukrainians who came to live with us here in Ireland.”
“It is important, as the Minister has mentioned, to recognise and thank all of the people who participated in the scheme, and to recognise the work of the Irish Red Cross and the many people who have made the scheme a success. We recognise that there are difficulties with schemes, and that is why this one has been under constant review.”
“What we want to work towards is a solution which recognises that contribution and which examines how, in the longer term, we can work with the Ukrainian people in our country and with the Government of Ukraine in order to ensure that a pathway exists for them to either continue to live here or, if they so choose, to return home.”
“lreland ratified the convention on International Women's Day, 8 March 2019. Zero Tolerance: Third National Strategy on Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence 2022-2026 is structured around the four pillars of the convention, namely, prevention, protection, prosecution and policy co-ordination.”
“Some of the treaty provisions relate to the justice sphere and, therefore, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In light of Ireland’s position under Protocol 21, the court determined that two decisions were necessary, one to cover areas coming within scope of Protocol 21 where an opt-in is required and another t…”
The complete record
Every one of 783 lines we hold for Colm Brophy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 16.
“Someone who is rehabilitated and has remained offence free for many years may continue to face barriers in Ireland simply because their conviction arose elsewhere. Therefore, an amendment will be brought forward to provide a mechanism whereby relevant convictions from outside the State may be considered within the scope of the legislation, subject, of course, to appropriate safeguards. The inclusion of a statutory review mechanism in the Bill is welcome. Given the nature of the changes proposed, it is entirely appropriate that we assess their impact. However, the Government proposes that the review should commence after three years rather than two, which would allow more time for the collection and analysis of meaningful data.”
“This would risk the system becoming cumbersome and difficult to manage for those responsible for implementing the law. For that reason, proposed amendments will simplify the matrix, while retaining the core objective of greater proportionality. Further work is needed to refine the model in order that it strikes the right balance between fairness and practicality. The Minister intends to introduce an amendment to address an important gap in the current law, namely convictions imposed by courts outside this jurisdiction. This is contemplated in the Bill in a limited manner in the proposed amendment to the Employment Equality Act 1998. As it stands, the law on spent convictions does not cover any sentences handed down by courts outside the State. In our increasingly interconnected world, this exclusion can create inequalities.”
“The Department has carefully considered the available evidence, the findings of research, submissions received during consultation and the practical implications of the proposed reforms. The Government intends to bring forward amendments to ensure that the final legislation is robust, workable and balanced. First, we propose to amend the matrix of rehabilitative periods set out in the Bill, which links the length of the sentence imposed to the length of the rehabilitative period. We fully support the principle underpinning this approach. However, in its current form, it would introduce a significant level of complexity to the operation of vetting disclosures. It would also give rise to a substantial increase in the number of parameters that must be considered and to practical challenges in relation to data management and retention.”
“The aim is to remove barriers to employment for people with criminal convictions and to support employers who are willing to take on people with previous convictions. A key contribution to the development of the strategy was inputs from those with direct experiences of the impacts of contact with the criminal justice system. It is important that we take great care in our approach to reforms of criminal justice provisions, ensuring that serious offences remain subject to appropriate safeguards. We must ensure clarity for individuals navigating the system and functionality for those operating within the criminal justice system, such as An Garda Síochána. The Minister is committed to engaging constructively on the Bill.”
“There is broad agreement that supporting access to employment and training for individuals involved in small-scale offending increases the likelihood of long-term disengagement from criminal activity and reduces re-offending. The Deputies may be aware that the Department of justice is carrying out work in this area. The Department is working with other criminal justice stakeholders to provide supports to people who have ceased offending and assist them in developing the stability needed to successfully rehabilitate and move away from offending. The Building Pathways Together 2025-2027 strategy document was published in late 2024. This is the third successive employment-focused strategy produced by the Department.”
“An amendment is proposed to the Employment Equality Act 1998 that seeks to ensure that spent convictions are not a factor in recruitment and employment decisions. The Bill, as initiated, sought to introduce significant reform to the current spent convictions regime. The reach of the Bill was further broadened by Committee Stage amendments in the Seanad following the publication of a report in 2019 by the Joint Committee on Justice. Following the 2019 report, the Department of Justice undertook additional analysis and commissioned comparative research examining how other jurisdictions approach similar issues. As part of this work, a public consultation process was carried out to consider spent convictions through the lens of sentence length and number of convictions; proportionality and youth; and the victim’s perspective.”
“Third, the Bill links the length of the sentence imposed on an offender to the length of the rehabilitative period. This introduces an element of proportionality to spent convictions and seeks to align the consequences more closely with the gravity of the offence. The Bill also provides for differential treatment for young adults aged 18 to 24. It recognises that this cohort is at a distinct developmental stage and proposes shorter rehabilitative periods. An amendment is proposed to the Children’s Act 2001 to ensure that children are not treated less favourably than young adults in comparable circumstances. The Bill includes a provision for a review of the operation of the amended legislation to commence no later than two years after enactment, with a further year allowed for the preparation of a report for the Oireachtas.”
“I will now turn to the Bill, which proposes significant amendments to the 2016 Act to provide for broader access to the spent convictions regime. It proposes to extend the existing spent convictions legislation to include non-custodial sentences of up to 48 months and custodial sentences of up to 24 months. Under the current system, individuals with more than one qualifying conviction are excluded from spent convictions. The Bill would remove that automatic exclusion. However, it introduces a safeguard whereby, if a new offence is committed within an existing rehabilitative period, that person’s convictions would remain unspent until the most recent rehabilitative period has expired. In doing this, the proposed system would reward those who demonstrate a sustained pattern of law-abiding behaviour.”
“The Act provides for some limited exceptions to the limit of a single conviction for certain common minor offences such as the majority of convictions in the District Court for minor public order offences; and the majority of convictions in the District Court for motoring offences, with the exception that only one dangerous driving conviction can become spent. However, sexual offences, sentences of imprisonment for 12 months or more, and offences which are tried in the Central Criminal Court cannot become spent. A conviction resulting in a non-custodial sentence of 24 months or less, where offenders are managed within the community, can also become spent after seven years. This includes suspended sentences of up to two years' imprisonment.”
“The principle behind this is straightforward. If a person has demonstrated over a sustained period that they have not re-offended, the law should recognise that rehabilitation and allow an opportunity for a second chance. Currently, the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016 permits a single conviction to become spent if it is handed down in the District Court, or if it carries less than 12 months’ imprisonment when handed down by any other court. Seven years must also pass from the date of conviction.”
“At its core, the Criminal Justice (Rehabilitative Periods) Bill 2018 sets out to improve the opportunities available to people with convictions at the lower end of the scale who have moved away from offending and want to get on with their lives and to become productive members of society. The Bill aims to do this by amending the current legal regime dealing with spent convictions. A spent conviction is not erased from the record. It does not rewrite a person’s history. Instead, after a specified period of time - referred to in this Bill as the rehabilitative period - and subject to certain conditions, a conviction is only required to be disclosed in certain specific and sensitive circumstances, for example when applying for certain types of employment or during the investigation of a criminal matter.”
“This week, as I mentioned, the Minister brought a memo to the Government seeking approval to continue with the approach of not opposing the Bill on Second Stage and I can confirm that was endorsed by the Cabinet. A conviction can carry consequences for an individual far beyond the sentence imposed by a court. It can affect, as the Deputy rightly pointed out, everything from employment to housing, education and training. It can limit opportunity. It creates barriers that make reintegration more difficult, and it can increase the risk of returning to offending.”
“As someone who has been a Deputy as well as a Minister of State, I acknowledge that incredibly hard work is done in offices by the staff in those offices and they are the people who give us the ability to stand here and make these speeches. A lot of hard work goes into it and it is good to see it acknowledged. The Bill has benefited from engagement across successive Governments, which reflects the serious importance of the issues involved. It was not opposed on Committee Stage in 2019 by then Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Charlie Flanagan. In 2021, Government approval was secured by then Minister for Justice, Deputy Helen McEntee, for the Bill to proceed, subject to the opportunity to introduce amendments.”
“I really welcome the opportunity to address Dáil Éireann today regarding the Criminal Justice (Rehabilitative Periods) Bill 2018 on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. Unfortunately he is in Brussels today and that is the only reason he is not here. At the outset, I acknowledge the work that has brought us to this point, some of which was so well described by Deputy Gannon. This Bill was first introduced to Seanad Éireann in 2018 by Senator Ruane. It completed all Stages there in June 2021 and I recognise, as Deputy Gannon did, her absolute commitment, persistence and strong advocacy on this. I thank Deputy Gannon for bringing the Bill before this House for consideration on Second Stage.”
“That is a very important point to relay to Men’s Aid. I will obviously convey the Senator’s remarks to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, who I know has done significant work in this area since becoming Minister. It is very important to have the recognition that the services provided are gender neutral, but I fully take on board the Senator’s comments that there is that problem area of men maybe not wanting to engage with services that they perceive as being particularly in one area, an area that for various reasons we do not need to go into today make them feel uncomfortable about engaging with the services. Therefore, the development that Cuan wants to have to ensure that wraparound services are available for male victims as well is very important.”
“The Men's Development Network has partnered with Sonas Domestic Violence Charity to establish a referral pathway to safe home accommodation for male victims and provide wraparound supports where needed. Importantly, Cuan is currently undertaking work to strengthen the evidence base around DSGBV in Ireland. This includes supporting the development of improved data collection on the prevalence of domestic violence affecting both men and women. This work will inform future service delivery planning and the development of a national DSGBV services development plan. Through these actions, the Government continues to work to ensure that supports remain accessible and responsive to all victims and survivors, regardless of gender.”
“Male victims can also access services provided by the Rape Crisis Centre and other specialist organisations, which offer free and confidential support to victim survivors of sexual abuse of all genders. The national rape crisis helpline operates 24 hours a day and is available to anyone affected by rape, sexual assault or other forms of sexual violence, regardless of gender. Currently, Cuan only provides funding for these helplines, as well as the national Women's Aid helpline. Men's Aid Ireland has not sought specific funding to make its national helpline, which operates from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday, available 24 hours a day. It should be noted that action has been taken to develop accommodation supports for male victims, in partnership with organisations within the DSGBV sector.”
“It is important to emphasise that Ireland’s domestic violence legislation is gender neutral, meaning both men and women are afforded the same protections under the law. Under budget 2026, funding was increased to almost €80 million to support Cuan and other services working to tackle DSGBV and to support the implementation of the zero tolerance strategy. This represents an increase of €12 million year on year. Through this funding, Cuan supports the delivery and development of 78 domestic and sexual violence organisations across Ireland, and a number of these provide specialist services specifically for male victims. Cuan funds the national male advice line, operated by the Men's Development Network, a service that operates seven days a week and provides confidential advice and support to male victims of domestic violence.”
“I thank the Senator for raising and putting a light on what is an important issue. The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration is fully committed to supporting victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV, irrespective of gender, and to ensuring that services in Ireland are accessible, effective and responsive to identified needs. The Government absolutely recognises that men and boys can be victims and survivors of domestic abuse. Through the delivery of the third national DSGBV strategy, with its overall aim of zero tolerance, we are working with partners across Government and within the sector to prevent all forms of DSGBV and to support anyone who is a victim of it.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The effect of the amendment would be that any applicant could effectively prevent their application from being considered in the accelerated examination procedure simply by refusing to consent to their preliminary health assessment. It is likely that this could result in some applicants who would have been subject to the accelerated examination procedure refusing to undergo assessment. This would negate the benefits of having both a preliminary health assessment and the accelerated examination procedure in the first place. As such, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 83.”