Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 42 of 84.
“I recognise, and more important the Supreme Court recognises, that journalistic privilege is a right that exists in Irish law. It is not specified in any written Act, but it is a consequence, as Mr. Justice Hogan said, of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. This legislation is a real advancement of protection of journalistic privilege and journalistic sources and it will ensure a statutory mechanism is in place, if a journalist says that what is being seized or what An Garda Síochána is seeking to search contains journalistic confidential information, for that to be determined by a court.”
“If we can consistently keep getting figures of approximately 200 coming in and out and if we get close to 1,000, we will begin to see, as we are seeing, greater Garda visibility in our communities. In my last minute, I will deal with the issue of journalistic privilege. It is worth pointing out that this is the first Bill that is expressly designed to deal with the protection of privilege. Senators are correct that it does not mention journalistic privilege or any other particular type of privilege. A number of different types of privilege exist and I did not think it appropriate to specify and define them. However, journalistic privilege is clearly covered by the provisions contained in this legislation. That is one of the reasons the provisions I outlined earlier are being introduced.”
“The representative associations do not even refer to a crisis now. I am pleased to say that in terms of retention, the number of people who left An Garda Síochána in 2024 was approximately 141 or 142. That is 1% of a force that has 14,500 members now. A 1% departure from a police force is unprecedentedly low, compared, in Ireland, with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, and with the UK police force. That is a sign we are doing a good job of retaining gardaí in the force. I am pleased to say recruitment numbers are looking good. I will be in Templemore on Friday for another passing out ceremony of, I think, 168 or 170 gardaí. They are good numbers.”
“That legislation will only come into place if the elected representatives of the Irish people in this House and the Lower House agree to it. Senator Ryan also mentioned the recording of interviews. This will be a real benefit. Historically, gardaí have had to waste far too much time transcribing notes of complainants who come before them. It can take a long time. They will now be able record interviews. I also want to be able to progress the prospect of having transcription mechanisms in place, so gardaí do not have to write down every word of the recording, but will have it written down by some of the new software devices that are available. Senator Ryan also referred to what she called a retention and recruitment crisis. I have to disagree with her. That term was used a number of years ago.”
“Members of the public should be able to find out what powers An Garda Síochána has to stop and search. They will be able to go to this legislation and I want to ensure this encompasses all the legislation that deals with Garda powers of stop and search. It is a significant power An Garda Síochána has. None of the rest of us can stop people on the street and search them. However, it is extremely important that we set out on a statutory basis the occasions on which An Garda Síochána can stop and search individuals. That is something gardaí want as well. It does not suit the interests of individual gardaí if the laws are vague or if we are relying on some unwritten common law. It is extremely important from the point of view of gardaí that they can look to written legislation that clearly specifies what they can and cannot do.”
“Justice Hogan of the Supreme Court that there is an urgency to this matter. That is why I am reforming the law in this area. Senator Nicole Ryan also mentioned a number of matters that overlap. I might deal with some of them now. She said that there is a lot of delay in justice reform. I want her to know that I am committed to doing as much as possible, as quickly as I can, as Minister for justice. However, it is correct that sometimes proposals are made or reform issues are discussed and are not pushed on. If we want to change things and achieve policy objectives, we have to push on legislation in the Houses and that is why I am here today. It is also important to point out that one of the advantages of this legislation, particularly when the amendments are proposed on Committee Stage, will be that it will codify search powers.”
“When this matter was challenged by Mr. Corcoran after the search warrant was granted, it went the whole way to the Supreme Court, which recognised that section 10 needed to be urgently reformed because there was nothing in it to take into account journalistic privilege or any other privilege that may arise. It happened in that case that there was journalistic privilege and there was no mechanism for seeking to invoke it. It happened in other cases as well in respect of legal professional privilege. Therefore, I fully appreciate the instruction and warning from the Supreme Court that, unless we change section 10 of the 1997 Act, the likelihood is that the Supreme Court will rule in any challenge that it is not compliant with the Constitution. We have been given a warning and that is why I am heeding the words of Mr.”
“Senator Boyhan also mentioned that he believed it would be preferable if there was an inter partes application for the purpose of assessing journalistic privilege or any other privilege. This is provided for in section 24(2), which states that a relevant person concerned may bring an application in respect of wishing to assert that there is a privilege arising in respect of the search warrant that has been granted. The Corcoran case was instructive. An Garda Síochána went to the District Court seeking a search warrant under section 10 of the 1997 Act. The District Court was not informed that the search warrant was in respect of Mr. Corcoran, who was a recognised journalist, nor was the district judge informed that the search warrant was also in respect of premises that were the offices of a newspaper, I think it was in Tipperary.”
“Prior to that Supreme Court decision, it was assumed that if the Garda got a warrant to search a house and if there was a mobile phone in that house, the warrant would authorise the Garda to search the phone as well as the house. Mr. Justice Charleton in the Supreme Court said that we needed to recognise that a digital device was a separate digital space that required its own authorisation if the Garda wished to search it. This is sensible and it is a greater protection for the Irish public. It recognises the fact there is a lot of information on individuals' phones and there should be a separate application if the Garda wants to search a phone or another digital device.”
“There are guidelines and rules in An Garda Síochána as to how intimate searches should be carried out. This legislation is not about that. It is about trying to stop and search individuals who may be carrying relevant articles as defined in the legislation, or individuals suspected of committing an indictable offence or a scheduled offence. I assure the Senator that there are very strong rules in respect of how any intimate searches, should they arise, should be conducted by An Garda Síochána. Senator Boyhan also mentioned electronic devices. The Supreme Court decision made in Quirke emphasised something that we all generally recognise now.”
“I have to say that, when we look at the policing and community safety legislation I commenced last year, at the heart of it is the requirement that human rights be front and centre of what the Garda seeks to do on behalf of the community. An integral part of everything the Garda does is ensuring that the human rights of all persons on the island are protected. I do not think it is necessary to set it out in every piece of legislation. If I set it out in this legislation, then any other time Garda powers are referred to, or when any legislation in respect of the Garda is referred to, we will have to start referencing human rights. The Senators can take it that it is central to all of the work that An Garda Síochána does. Senator Boyhan also mentioned intimate searches.”
“I thank Senators for their contributions to this debate on what is very important proposed legislation. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Gallagher as an méid a dúirt sé. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach leis. I will deal generally with some of the issues identified by my friends Senators Boyhan and Ryan on the right-hand side of the House, because there is support for the legislation on the Government side. Senator Boyhan referred to the Bill's digest documentation and I will certainly have a look at it. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service is invaluable and useful, and it is important for Ministers such as myself to get an alternative perspective on legislation. Senators Boyhan and Ryan emphasised the need to place human rights at the centre of the legislation.”
“Additional technical amendments may follow, including to finalise the schedules of offences, and clarify the recording and management of material seized under warrant. These measures will ensure that the legislation operates effectively in practice. The Bill represents a targeted and expedited phase of the broader Garda powers reform project, focusing on areas where urgent constitutional and legal clarity is required. I look forward to the debate on it.”
“Sections 36 and 37 extend these protections to all persons in custody and provide for custody records to be maintained electronically. Section 38 introduces mandatory electronic recording of interviews. Part 6 contains miscellaneous matters. Section 39 places the obligation to administer a caution on a clear statutory footing. Section 40 amends section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 to explicitly apply that provision to misconduct by members of the Garda, thereby responding to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Hyland case. Section 41 amends section 50. I intend to bring forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage. To ensure coherence and avoid duplication, there will be amendments to repeal existing search warrant provisions across various enactments and fully align them with the new framework of this Bill.”
“Part 4 provides a statutory framework for accessing electronic devices and information systems lawfully seized. This part enables a member of the Garda to apply to a District Court judge where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence of an offence has been committed. Part 5 introduces a modernised and strengthened framework governing the treatment of persons in Garda custody. Sections 30 to 33, inclusive, clarify and consolidate the rights of persons in custody to consult a solicitor and to have a solicitor present. Section 34 sets out limited and exceptional circumstances in which a Garda inspector may authorise an interview to proceed before a detained person has exercised their right to consult with a solicitor. Section 35 sets out how a person in custody other than a child may waive entitlements.”
“Section 20 provides for the limited and exceptional circumstances in which the court may authorise the forensic examination of material, subject to privilege other than legal professional privilege, where this is strictly necessary and proportionate in critical cases. Section 21 strengthens the rights of occupiers. Sections 22 and 23 allow gardaí to seize material containing both items they may lawfully take and items they may not take if on-site separation is impractical and establish procedures for this. Sections 24 and 25 establish a clear process for the determination of privileged material by the High Court. Section 26 allows for applications to extend the validity of a warrant. Section 27 provides for tightly circumscribed powers to conduct a search without prior judicial authorisation.”
“It establishes a comprehensive and consolidated framework for the application for and execution of search warrants by gardaí. While other statutory bodies will amend their powers separately, this part provides the core template for modern search warrant law. Section 17 provides for applications to the District Court where there are reasonable grounds to suspect evidence of an indictable offence or a specified summary offence may be found at a place. Where privileged material is suspected, all known information concerning its nature and relevance must be disclosed to the court. Section 18 sets out the powers relating to search warrants. Section 19 regulates the search and examination of electronic devices.”
“This is standard in most legislation. Part 2 provides a consolidated statutory basis for Garda stop and search powers. Section 9 allows a member of the force to stop and search a person or vehicle where there are reasonable grounds to suspect possession of a relevant article, a term which is defined in section 7. Section 10 allows for vehicle searches. Part 2 also sets out clear procedural safeguards. Section 12 requires that persons be informed, in accessible language, of the reason for the search and its statutory basis, while section 13 requires a written record of searches and provides a right to a copy of that record. Section 14 confines the use of force to what is reasonably necessary in line with established legal standards. Section 15 creates offences relating to obstruction. Part 3 is a central element of the Bill.”
“Protections for journalists sit within a broader framework of safeguards that apply to all search and seizure powers under the Bill. From the outset, law enforcement actions are subject to robust judicial oversight. That will continue in the context of this legislation. The Bill introduces, for the first time, a comprehensive statutory framework for the treatment of privileged material. Legal professional privilege is absolute. Other forms of privilege, including journalistic, follow clear procedures for identification and resolution. This Bill strikes a balance and ensures that those rights are adequately protected. I will now proceed to talk about the structure of the Bill. In the two and a half minutes remaining, I will provide information on the various sections it contains. Part 1 is a general provision that deals with definitions.”
“The Bill also strengthens protections around electronic devices, which cannot be accessed without prior judicial authorisation, reflecting the decision of Mr. Justice Charleton in the Quirke decision, where he said that a phone or a computer was a separate digital space. Taken together, these measures enhance protections for journalists and their sources, placing independent judicial oversight at the centre and aligning the law with constitutional and European human rights standards. As recognised by the Supreme Court, journalistic privilege is fundamental but not absolute and may in rare cases be balanced against compelling public interests. This Bill strengthens rather than weakens the protections in this regard. I welcome the continued engagement with journalists on this matter and to hearing Senators views in respect of it.”
“Part 3 repeals the deficient framework and replaces it with a structured, judicially supervised process. Gardaí must notify the court of potential privilege claims, including journalistic privilege. Judges may seek additional information or limit or refuse authorisations to ensure access is necessary and proportionate. Where privileged material is involved, a High Court judge makes the determination. Even in cases where privilege was not flagged initially, any later discovery triggers the same High Court determination process. In the vast majority of cases, privileged material will be set aside and not examined. Access is permitted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and only with judicial approval.”
“I know it is absolutely essential that we protect journalistic privilege as much as possible. Part 3 does not diminish journalistic privilege. It exists precisely because the Supreme Court found the existing law wanting and expressly called for urgent legislative action. In Corcoran, search warrants were issued under section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 in respect of a journalist's home and a newspaper's offices without requiring gardaí to tell the District Court judge that journalistic privilege might arise. The Supreme Court, correctly in my view, identified serious shortcomings, particularly the absence of any independent, merits-based judicial assessment of privilege claims, and emphasised that urgent legislative reform was required.”
“As I said, the Supreme Court decisions in Corcoran and Quirke were significant and, along with the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, decision in Landeck, they underscore the need for a transparent, rights-compliant regime for access to digital data, information systems and access codes. It is where digital evidence and privileged material intersect that urgent legislative reform is required. The Bill has been drafted with these judgments to the fore, ensuring compliance with both constitutional and EU law. I will briefly address some of the concerns that have been raised by journalists and representative bodies regarding Part 3. The reason Part 3 is being introduced is that I am responding to the findings of the Supreme Court in Corcoran.”
“Much existing law was developed when evidence was physical and easily separable, whereas today a single device may contain vast quantities of sensitive information. The Bill recognises this by distinguishing between seizing a device, preserving or capturing data, screening material for privilege and conducting a forensic examination of digital content. By requiring each step to be explicitly authorised and judicially supervised, the Bill introduces clarity where the law was previously uncertain while properly balancing investigative needs and fundamental rights. The Bill must also be understood in the context of wider legal developments.”
“These judgments highlighted gaps in statutory safeguards, deficiencies in judicial oversight and legal uncertainty for both gardaí and affected individuals. This Bill seeks to address those concerns. On the advice of the Attorney General, the Government decided to expedite the parts of the codification project dealing with stop and search, access to electronic devices and custody safeguards. At its core, the Bill places Garda powers on a clear statutory footing with judicial oversight and safeguards reflecting the modern reality that evidence is increasingly digital. It does not expand powers in an unchecked way. Instead, it places existing powers on a more constitutionally secure basis and adds safeguards where none previously existed. This balance is particularly important for digital evidence.”
“Ensuring lawful and timely access to such evidence is absolutely essential. Ultimately, the Bill promotes clarity, fairness and the proper administration of justice, ensuring that lawfully obtained digital evidence can be relied upon in court. It modernises policing powers and reflects the Government's commitment to equipping An Garda Síochána to protect the public while fully respecting fundamental rights. The general scheme of the Bill was published nearly four years ago in June 2021. It aimed to codify Garda powers, including arrest and detention. Since then, there have been significant judgments from the Supreme Court, particularly the Corcoran and Quirke decisions. They have identified deficiencies in the law on search warrants, particularly regarding electronic devices and privileged material.”
“These devices are a vital source of evidence to the Garda and their value must not be undermined by uncertainty over the Garda's lawful access under judicially approved search warrants. In organised crime investigations, the Garda increasingly encounters sophisticated technology. Recent cases have involved satellite phones, global positioning system, GPS, devices, radios and other digital equipment, all central to co-ordinating criminal enterprises. Criminals use this technology to conceal and facilitate serious offences and the Garda must be able to seize and access this information lawfully, subject to appropriate safeguards. This Bill is not simply about phone messages. It also covers laptops and other digital storage devices that may contain evidence critical to prosecutions, including in cases involving child sexual abuse material.”
“I am pleased to be here to introduce this Bill to Seanad Éireann. I look forward to hearing the contributions of colleagues. I am initiating this Bill in the Upper House and it will go into Dáil Éireann hereafter. This is an important and necessary piece of legislation. It responds directly to developments in constitutional, European and human rights law, reflecting this Government's commitment to ensuring that policing powers are exercised within a clear, modern and legally robust framework. Much of the recent commentary on it has focused on journalistic privilege, which this Bill addresses carefully. However, the legislation serves a much broader purpose. Electronic devices now feature in almost every serious criminal investigation and the number seized by the Garda reflects their prevalence.”
“Vote 19 — Office of the Ombudsman (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €18,359,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2026, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Office of the Commission for Public Service Appointments, the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information.”
“Vote 17 — Public Appointments Service (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €26,794,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2026, for the salaries and expenses of the Public Appointments Service and that a sum not exceeding €150,000 be granted by way of the application for capital supply services of unspent appropriations, the surrender of which may be deferred under Section 91 of the Finance Act 2004. Vote 18 — National Shared Services Office (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €85,346,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2026, for the salaries and expenses of the National Shared Services Office.”
“Vote 14 — State Laboratory (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €16,540,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2026, for the salaries and expenses of the State Laboratory. Vote 15 — Secret Service (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €2,000,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2026, for Secret Service.”
“Vote 12 — Superannuation and Retired Allowances (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €902,982,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2026, for pensions, superannuation, occupational injuries, and additional and other allowances and gratuities under the Superannuation Acts 1834 to 2004 and sundry other statutes; extra-statutory pensions, allowances and gratuities awarded by the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, fees to medical referees and occasional fees to doctors; compensation and other payments in respect of personal injuries; fees to Pensions Authority and other professional fees, miscellaneous payments, etc.”
“I move the following Revised Estimates: Vote 11 — Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €151,551,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2026, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, for certain services administered by the Office of the Minister and for payment of certain grants, and that a sum not exceeding €950,000 be granted by way of the application for capital supply services of unspent appropriations, the surrender of which may be deferred under Section 91 of the Finance Act 2004.”
“Although colleagues are perfectly entitled to be critical of the proposals put forward by the Government, I ask them to put forward how they would change the legislation if they were in the same position as me and the Minister of State. If they had an opportunity to include provisions to change asylum laws in Ireland, what changes would they make? They should not feel obliged to restrict themselves to what is within the parameters of the EU regulations and directives. They should tell us what measures they would like to see within our asylum laws in Ireland. These measures will be given consideration. I commend the Bill to the House.”
“This will be done by building a system that is sustainable, fair and efficient and that meets our obligations under international law. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House as we continue our discussions on this important legislation in the coming weeks. It is obviously very significant legislation. It is very lengthy and detailed, and I want to give the House as much time as possible on Second Stage for its consideration. That is why I think three days have been allocated for the purpose of debating this on Second Stage. I look forward to hearing contributions from other Deputies in the House. I will listen to them closely, as will my colleague Deputy Brophy, the Minister of State, who has worked very closely with me on formulating these proposals.”
“These propose that beneficiaries of international protection must wait for a defined period before bringing family members to Ireland and must be able to show proof that they are self-sufficient. I am reflecting on the appropriate period to ensure the correct balance is struck between the interests of the Irish public and those seeking family reunification, recognising that our resources are not unlimited and that those seeking reunification should be able to support any persons joining them. Before I finish, I would like to address suggestions that this Bill is prioritising speed over fairness. I do not believe that is accurate. This legislation strikes a fair balance between the two. It reinforces Ireland’s commitment to providing refuge and protection to those who need it.”
“These will include provisions for material reception conditions, restrictions of freedom of movement, detention, alternatives to detention, special reception needs and labour market access. There will be amendments to make provision for legal counselling, legal advice and legal aid, as required under the asylum procedures regulation. I will introduce provisions on temporary protection, which will include expanded and clarified provisions to deal with the temporary protection of displaced persons, including revocation of temporary protection. My Department and the Office of the Attorney General are developing provisions for inclusion in the Bill to give effect to the proposals approved by the Government last November on family reunification.”
“Part 13 makes provision for miscellaneous matters, including the designation of safe countries of origin and safe third countries. Part 14 provides for transitional provisions and amendments to the International Protection Act 2015. Existing caseloads of applications and appeals will continue to be processed under the 2015 Act, with the new arrangements applying to international protection applications lodged from 12 June of this year. Part 15 provides for amendments to other enactments. The Schedule sets out the text of the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. I now want to mention the amendments I intend to introduce on Committee and Report Stages. I will introduce amendments to give effect to the reception conditions directive.”
“Part 12 provides for the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism, as provided for in the screening regulation and the asylum border procedures regulation, which will be headed by a chief inspector of asylum border procedures. The chief inspector will monitor compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, during the screening of applicants and the application of the asylum border procedure. The chief inspector will have the power to investigate allegations of breaches of rights and to inspect asylum border facilities. Part 12 will also establish an advisory board for the chief inspector. The advisory board’s purpose will be to consult, guide and advise the chief inspector in relation to his or her duties and the performance of his or her functions.”
“Chapter 2 provides for appropriate alignment with relevant provisions of the return border procedure regulation. Applicants whose applications are rejected under the asylum border procedure will, with limited exceptions, be placed in the return border procedure. Part 10 provides for matters relating to programme refugees and the process that will apply where it is proposed that Ireland should request the European Commission to activate the procedure in the crisis and force majeure regulation. Part 11 provides for the establishment, membership and functions of the new tribunal. It will be known as the tribunal for asylum and returns appeals. It will operate separately from IPAT and deal only with appeals against international protection returns decisions made under this legislation, which will commence on 12 June.”
“Part 8 also makes provision for withdrawal of international protection and the right to appeal of a person subject to 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. However, an entry ban notice will not be revoked where the person poses a risk to public policy, public order or national security. That combination of returns and exclusion is a new aspect to it as well.”
“In deciding whether an oral hearing is necessary, the appeals officer must have regard to guidelines issued by the chief appeals officer relating to appeals. Part 7 deals with the rights and entitlements of persons who have been granted international protection. It provides for certain rights for beneficiaries of international protection and permission to reside in the State. Part 8 sets out the circumstances where voluntary return to a person’s country of origin, country of former habitual residence, or a third country where the person is legally entitled to reside, may be offered. The option of voluntary return will not be offered to persons who have committed a serious offence or who are a danger to the security of the State.”
“The tribunal will 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. That is another very significant change that will arise as a result of this legislation, if it is enacted. At present, most appeals are determined alongside an oral hearing. In future, oral hearings under the new legislative procedure will be the exception. 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 circumstances pertaining at the time of the appeal and not in the past.”
“That is one of the most significant aspects of this new legislation. It places an obligation on this State to ensure that we process applications, in certain instances under the asylum border procedure, within a period of 12 weeks. That expedited process is fair to the applicant and fair to the State. 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 asylum procedures regulation. These time limits will be 10 days for appeals where the applicant was subject to the accelerated examination procedure or asylum border procedure and one month for other appeals.”
“Chapter 2 provides for the examination and, where necessary, the prioritisation of applications for international protection. Chapter 3 stipulates the requirements for interviews of applicants. Chapter 4 outlines the different decisions that can be made in relation to applications and sets out arrangements for the granting of refugee status or subsidiary protection status. Chapter 5 provides for the accelerated examination procedure. Chapter 6 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 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. Part 4 provides for the determination of the member state responsible for examining an application. Provision is made for matters relating to transfer decisions. Part 4 sets out the procedures that will apply when Ireland is the member state responsible for examining an application. The new responsibility provisions replace the Dublin III regulation. Part 5 deals with the examination of international protection applications. Chapter 1 provides for the use of a medical examination for indications of past persecution or serious harm.”
“Chapter 2 makes provision for the appointment of representatives and provisional representatives for unaccompanied minors. Chapter 3 outlines 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 multi-disciplinary assessment. Chapter 4 provides for an applicant's right to remain in the State while his or her application is being examined and the limitations and exceptions attached to the right to remain. Chapter 4 also provides for the international protection applicant card. Chapter 5 makes provision for explicit and implicit withdrawal of applications. Chapter 6 provides for subsequent applications.”
“Chapter 2 provides for the application of the concepts of first country of asylum and safe third country. Part 2 of the Bill sets out matters relating to the taking of biometric data and the screening of applicants for international protection. Chapter 1 provides for the taking and transmission of data to Eurodac as well as the management of this data. Chapter 2 ensures appropriate alignment with the screening regulation. Persons applying for international protection will undergo screening. Chapter 2 provides for the designation of screening centres, the screening process and preliminary health and vulnerability checks. Part 3 provides for the procedures that will apply where a person applies for international protection. Chapter 1 provides for the making, registration and lodgement of applications for international protection.”
“This phased approach has enabled my Department to test the ability of the international protection system in its entirety to process cases within the required timeframe of the future asylum border procedure and to make adjustments where necessary. This work has allowed my Department to identify pressure points and practical challenges across the process, to create new standard operating procedures and to set out future training needs. I will now turn to the detail of the Bill. The Bill is divided into 15 Parts which I will briefly outline. Part 1 deals with preliminary matters. Chapter 2 provides that the Minister for justice is the designated determining authority for the purposes of the pact measures to determine whether a person qualifies as a refugee or is eligible for subsidiary protection.”
“In preparation for the commencement of the Act, my Department has already begun to operate elements of the new asylum border procedure and to transition gradually to fully implementing the provisions that will be set out in this legislation. This transition is being undertaken within the framework of the existing legislation, which is the International Protection Act 2015. To begin this transition, new readiness teams were established in June 2025. Operations began in Citywest reception centre in July 2025, in partnership with the International Protection Office, IPO, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT, the International Protection Accommodation Service and the immigration service delivery’s repatriation team.”