Written Answers Nos. 520-539
521. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the exact number of asylum applications that have been assessed as inadmissible on the basis of the UK safe third country designation since its introduction; the number of these cases that have resulted in an actual return to the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52888/26]
View answerPrior to the UK leaving the EU, returns to the UK were governed under the EU Regulations; the UK was the primary destination country for people transferred from Ireland under these Regulations.
Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, a new arrangement for reciprocal returns of international protection applicants between Ireland and the UK was agreed. However, a High Court judgment subsequently identified legal issues with the process concerning the designation in Irish law of safe third countries.
These issues raised by the judgment were addressed by the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 and, following an analysis required under the Act, I re-designated the UK as a safe third country for returns under the International Protection Act 2015.
As the Deputy will be aware the UK has been re-designated as a safe third country for returns under the International Protection Act 2015, which applies to applications for international protection made prior to 12 June 2026.
I have also designated the United Kingdom as a safe third country for the purposes of the 2026 Act.
As no return orders were issued during the Covid pandemic and due to the litigation challenges outlined above, only one return order has been signed for a UK inadmissible applicant during this recent period.
Discussions are underway by officials on both sides in relation to arrangements for re-operationalising the agreement on reciprocal returns of international protection applicants between Ireland and the UK.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a shared responsibility and a shared interest in protecting the Common Travel Areas. It offers great advantages to our people on a social and economic level. The invisible border on the island of Ireland is among the most tangible gains of the peace process and is essential to the continuing normalisation of relationships.
In June, I discussed the importance of cross border cooperation in protecting the CTA for both Ireland and the UK by phone with the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice, Naomi Long and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hillary Benn. I also spoke with UK Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood; we discussed recent events across Northern Ireland, the ongoing need for cross border cooperation and our shared focus on protecting the Common Travel Area. Furthermore, I intend to meet with the Home Secretary at the earliest opportunity to discuss relevant matters, including returns.
Critical to the overall international protection system working is getting decisions made quickly. That is what the Pact is about and is why we are investing more resources in the system; we should not lose sight of that essential point.
522. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he is aware it is taking over four weeks for Garda vetting decisions to be provided to applicants in some cases; the steps being taken to reduce vetting timeframes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52920/26]
View answerThe Garda Commissioner is responsible for the management and administration of An Garda Síochána under Section 33 of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. This includes all operational matters, such as Garda vetting applications which are an operational matter for the Garda National Vetting Bureau (GNVB) under the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 (as amended).
The primary purpose of vetting carried out by the Garda National Vetting Bureau (GNVB) is to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. This requires a robust Garda vetting process that reassures the public, and in particular parents, that appropriate checks are conducted on people taking on positions of trust.
Garda Vetting applications are processed on a first-come, first serve basis in chronological order from date of receipt. This is with a view to observing equity and fairness in respect of all vetting subjects.
I am informed that the current average turnaround time for vetting applications is 15-18 business days from the date the application is received at the GNVB, for 85% of applications received. Some applications take longer than the average processing time for a multiplicity of reasons.
The Government is aware of ongoing concerns regarding certain aspects of the vetting process and I have listened carefully to the views of affected sectors. I believe that the vetting system should be updated to ensure that the burden of seeking vetting disclosures, particularly on volunteers and organisations working in their communities, is minimised to the greatest extent possible, while maintaining the high standards that are necessary.
Further to the work carried out by the Garda Vetting Review Group, steps are now being taken to implement a number of key changes to the process that will ensure it remains robust and effective while improving the service to customers.
In practice, and subject to a general requirement that vetting be renewed every three years, it is envisaged that this will mean that when a person is vetted for the work they will be or are likely to be involved in as part of their employment or volunteering within identified risk categories, the person would not be required to repeat the process if they were to move to another role within the same risk category.
My Department is actively engaging with the Garda National Vetting Bureau on the detailed work of developing the necessary legislative and technical steps to meet these goals in a way that is workable in practice. This includes an assessment of appropriate models for an expansion of digital service delivery, which is a very significant project that will necessarily take time to fully scope and implement.
An Garda Síochána also recognises the administrative burden involved, and, in light of ongoing technological advancements, options to improve efficiency while maintaining robust safeguards continue to be examined. These will be considered as part of wider steps that are now being taken to implement the key changes to the vetting process that I have outlined, to ensure it remains robust and effective while improving the service to customers.
524. Deputy Michael Murphy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the total expenditure incurred by the State on security services associated with the rapid-build modular accommodation development at a location (details supplied) from the commencement of works to the date of completion; the amount spent in each year; the security provider or providers engaged; the nature of the security services provided (including construction phase, static guarding, mobile patrols, CCTV monitoring or other security measures); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52956/26]
View answer525. Deputy Michael Murphy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration whether any security costs associated with the rapid-build modular accommodation development at a location (details supplied) were met by the OPW or any other public body; the total amount of such expenditure; the breakdown by year and category of expenditure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52957/26]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 524 and 525 together.
The location to which the Deputy refers was the last site to be delivered under the Rapid Build Programme for people fleeing the war in Ukraine. In total, the Programme has delivered 654 homes at 11 sites nationwide which are providing temporary accommodation for just over 2,600 people. Works on this site commenced in Autumn 2024, the site was handed over in July 2025 and was occupied by residents from August of that year.
As with any construction project, security was a standard feature at this and each of the rapid build sites during development and remained in place in each case until the units at each site were occupied to at least 50% occupancy. Security was provided as part of the overall site development contract, which was procured by the OPW and funded by the State, initially through the then Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Responsibility for Ukraine accommodation transferred to my Department in May 2025, including responsibility for the costs for same.
There were specific security concerns and requirements at this location over the period of development and initial occupation period, due to regrettable instances of anti-social behaviour, criminal damage to property and threats to the site. Enhanced security was provided at this location on a 24-hour a day basis, based on consultation with local Gardaí and community stakeholders and the provider on the site. This included 1 security guard on site during the day and 2 security guards at night, working on structured shifts, augmented by CCTV on site.
The security costs for the development phase at the location to which the Deputy refers are as follows:
|
Description |
Cost €m |
|
Security Guards |
3.74 |
|
Security Management Costs (resourcing, logistics, security plans, consulting, briefings etc) |
0.21 |
|
Accommodation costs for Security Guards |
0.05 |
|
Security Equipment (CCTV and lighting) |
0.11 |
|
Development Total |
4.12 |
Final accounts for the Rapid Build Programme are still being finalised so a year-on-year breakdown for each of these aspects is not yet available. There are no ongoing security costs at any of the rapid build sites.
526. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of submissions received on the proposed demolition of the old Cork prison site. [52962/26]
View answerI am advised by the Irish Prison Service that it has received 84 submissions in relation to the proposed demolition of the old Cork Prison, and that due consideration will be given to each submission and reply issued.
The facility on the old decommissioned Cork Prison site will be a large extension of the existing prison and will provide prison spaces for approximately 100 women and 230 men. This intended approach will ensure efficiencies with the design and the practical operations of the new facility in parallel with the existing prison.
As the project’s planning process commences with relevant authorities, it should be emphasised that this project is at a preliminary stage and that there will be stakeholder engagement as part of the overall planning process.
527. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of international protection applications determined at first instance in each year from 2020 to date in 2026; and the number and percentage refused in each year. [52967/26]
View answer528. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of applicants refused international protection at first instance who subsequently secured refugee status, subsidiary protection or permission to remain on appeal in each year from 2020 to date in 2026. [52968/26]
View answer529. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of applicants from designated safe countries of origin who were granted international protection or permission to remain in each year from 2020 to date in 2026, by nationality. [52969/26]
View answer530. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of appeal or review stages available to an applicant following a negative international protection decision; and the average time taken at each stage for each of the past five years, in tabular form. [52970/26]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 527 to 530, inclusive, together.
Under the International Protection Act 2015, an applicant makes only one application under the single procedure. All grounds for seeking international protection (refugee status and subsidiary protection) as well as permission to remain are determined in this one process. This is known as a first-instance decision, or first-instance recommendation.
The International Protection Office (IPO) makes first instance recommendations in respect of international protection (refugee status and subsidiary protection) as well as decisions on permission to remain.
All applicants refused international protection have a right to appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) who must then consider if the earlier International Protection Office (IPO) determinations on refugee status and subsidiary protection should be affirmed (refused) or set aside (granted).
Applicants who have had their appeal for international protection refused are entitled to submit a request to review their permission to remain to the IPO where their circumstances have changed since their first instance recommendation.
If successful, they will be granted permission to remain in Ireland. If the permission to remain review is refused the persons may have the option of voluntary return, which if not accepted will in the normal course lead to the making of a deportation order. The only barrier to that course of action is the provisions of section 50 of the International Protection Act 2015 on the prohibition of refoulement.
The International Protection Act 2026 was passed into law last month and gives effect to the EU Migration and Asylum Pact. The new rules will take effect on 12 June 2026 and my Department continues to prepare in advance of this date.
Under the Pact examinations to determine whether a person qualifies as a refugee or is eligible for subsidiary protection will be conducted by the determining authority, the International Protection Office (IPO) and the new appeals body, the Tribunal for Asylum and Returns Appeals (TARA), the appellate body under the 2026 Act IP Bill 2026 to determine appeals arising post 12 June 2026. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal will continue in existence to hear appeals relating to applications under the International Protection Act 2015.
A number of tables are set out at the following link. The table below shows all first instance decisions for international protection under the 2015 Act from 2020 to 8 July 2026. Please note that there is not a direct correlation between the year and application was made and the year the decision issued.
The table below shows first instance decisions for international protection under the 2015 Act where the applicant was from a safe country of origin covering the period from 2020 to 8 July 2026. Data broken down by nationality is not available.
The table below shows all the decisions made by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal from 2020 to 8 July 2026.
The table below shows the number of appeals withdrawn/ deemed withdrawn from 2020 to 8 July 2026.
The table below shows processing times for appeals to IPAT from 2020 to 8 July 2026.
Please note, all figures are correct at time of issue, however, all statistics may be subject to data cleansing.
531. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the total cost of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal in each year from 2020 to date in 2026, including administration, legal aid and interpretation costs. [52971/26]
View answerI am fully committed to ensuring that Ireland’s International Protection system is robust, and rules based, and that our borders are protected.
There has been a significant increase in investment into the international protection appeal's system over the last number of years which, combined with digitisation and process reengineering, has facilitated a major increase in processing capacity and demonstrates a strong commitment to reducing cases on hand.
The table below details expenditure per year from 2020 to end of June 2026 for the International Protection Appeals Tribunal.
|
Year |
€'000 |
|
2020 |
3,305 |
|
2021 |
3,369 |
|
2022 |
3,255 |
|
2023 |
3,805 |
|
2024 |
5,810 |
|
2025 |
8,449 |
|
2026* |
4,977 |
*to end of June.
532. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the total cost to the State of judicial review and other court proceedings arising from international protection and immigration cases in each year from 2020 to date in 2026, including legal costs and interpreter fees. [52972/26]
View answerIt has not been possible to collate the information requested by the Deputy in the time available. I will write to the Deputy directly once the information is to hand.
533. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the total amount spent on translation and interpretation services across the international protection system in each year from 2020 to date in 2026, in tabular form. [52973/26]
View answerIt is a central priority for me that Ireland’s immigration system is robust and rules based.
The number of International Protection applications have been rising over the past number of years, reaching 18,500 in 2024. In 2025, application numbers reduced by approximately a third. Year-to-date application numbers in 2026 are around 3,800 and this figure is in line with applications made in the same period in 2025.
In 2025, the International Protection Office (IPO) delivered over 20,200 first instance decisions compared to approximately 14,100 in 2024: a 44% increase. IPAT more than doubled the number of appeals closed from 3,100 in 2024 to nearly 6,300 in 2025. This year as of 5 July, IPAT has already closed 4,812 appeals and is on track to significantly exceed the number of appeals closed in 2025.
As the Deputy will be aware, the International Protection Act 2026 gives effect to the EU Migration and Asylum Pact and came into effect on 12 June 2026.
The Pact provides a fair, sustainable and efficient asylum procedure. This will be achieved through convergence in asylum practices across the EU including standardised processing times for decisions: six months for a standard procedure, three months for accelerated and border procedures and two months for processing applicants who have applied for protection elsewhere in Europe.
Having a common system across the EU makes sure that all applicants are treated the same in every Member State with no incentive to move from one to another. If Ireland had not opted into 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.
The table at the link below details translation and interpretation costs spend across immigration services, including international protection, by my Department from 2020 to end of June 2026.
The increase in spend since 2025 is partly attributable to the return of International Protection Accommodation Services and the Irish Refugee Protection Programme to the Department.
*To End of June 2026.
534. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of persons who availed of assisted voluntary return programmes in each year from 2020 to date in 2026; and the total amount paid by the State under such programmes. [52974/26]
View answerIt is a central priority for me that Ireland’s immigration system is robust and rules based and that if a person is not granted international protection or permission to remain, that they leave the State.
The enforcement aspects of our laws, including deportation orders, are an essential requirement for the system to work effectively and to ensure that there is confidence in the application of our legislation in this area.
Deportations are costly and complex to enforce. It is the preferred option to return people voluntarily and my Department has a voluntary return programme to assist people to return prior to the issuance of a deportation order.
A person can only avail of voluntary return before a deportation order is issued and I have increased resources into this programme to enable individuals who wish to return before a deportation order is issued to them.
Please below see data below with respect to voluntary returns.
Up until 2023, the Voluntary Return Programme was administered solely by the UN’s International Organisation for Migration (IOM) on behalf of my Department. In 2024, my Department developed its own Voluntary Return Programme, whilst still using the support of the IOM for assisting more vulnerable people.
The table below details the number of Individuals and Family Groups who received financial reintegration assistance, and the expenditure related to the delivery of reintegration grants under IOM programmes implemented between 01 January 2020 to 31 August 2025. The below figures include the payment of reintegration grants and associated costs of this. Depending on the Country of Return, IOM may charge a Service Fee for the administration and delivery of these services.
Please see at the link below the total cost of Department Voluntary Return Schemes 2024-2026. These figures include both reintegration assistance and administrative costs.
Financial reintegration assistance, which can only be availed of once, is provided when the person has departed the State.
Not all participants in the Voluntary Return programme immediately pursue their reintegration assistance upon leaving the State and some may not pursue it at all; there can also be a time lag between an individual receiving reintegration assistance and the reporting of that expenditure. For that reason, the figures set out in the tables above are subject to change.
535. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of persons granted permission to remain under the 2022 scheme for the regularisation of long-term undocumented migrants; and the number of applications refused. [52975/26]
View answer536. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of persons granted permission under the 2022 regularisation scheme who have subsequently obtained Irish citizenship through naturalisation, by year. [52976/26]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 535 and 536 together.
The Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants scheme opened on 31 January 2022 and closed on 31 July 2022. This once in a generation scheme was designed to give long-term undocumented people without a current permission to remain in the State, the chance to regularise their status, access the labour market and begin their path to citizenship. The scheme was only open to those who did not have a current permission to reside in the State.
My Department recorded 6,548 applications in respect of 8,311 individuals under the time limited scheme, including 1,126 minors, which were submitted as a part of family applications.
8,188 decisions have issued under the scheme, of which 6,540 were positive decisions, 1,648 were negative decisions; 120 applications were withdrawn by the applicants for various reasons.
In relation to the number of people that have subsequently obtained naturalisation, I can advise the Deputy that whilst an individual application will record the residency and immigration permission being relied on, statistics are not maintained by my Department to provide for a breakdown of the type of immigration permission held prior to naturalisation.
All applications for a certificate of naturalisation are assessed individually based on the provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended.
Applicants are required to have 5 years reckonable residence in the State prior to making an application, except for spouses of Irish nationals where the requirement is 3 years (under section 15 of the Act). In all cases, the final 12 months must be continuous residence in the State with up to 70 days allowed to facilitate foreign travel for business family or holiday purposes.
537. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in respect of the 2,272 cases processed under the accelerated border procedure to date, the number of deportation orders issued, the number of enforced removals carried out, the number of voluntary returns; and the number of cases still awaiting removal following a final negative decision. [53020/26]
View answer538. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in respect of the 2,272 cases processed under the accelerated border procedure to date, the primary reasons for the gap between orders issued and persons actually removed, including the proportion attributable to judicial review proceedings, appeals, absence of travel documentation, and lack of origin-country cooperation on readmission. [53021/26]
View answer539. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in respect of the 2,272 cases processed under the accelerated border procedure to date, the average and longest time elapsed between a deportation order being signed and actual removal from the State; and the estimated cost per case of operating the accelerated procedure, including detention, legal aid, and processing costs, compared with the standard procedure [53022/26]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 537 to 539, inclusive, together.
In 2025, in preparation for the introduction of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum on June 12, 2026, the Department agreed to frontload elements of the EU Pact Border Procedure and transition gradually to ensure readiness for new timelines required under the Pact. This transition programme was initiated on 7 July 2025 and ran up to 8 May 2026 under the International Protection Act 2015. From 12 June 2026, all new asylum applications are now being processed in line with the International Protection Act 2026 and the EU regulations.
During the transition period, all asylum applicants from the then-15 designated safe countries of origin were processed in an accelerated procedure, as well as Dublin III cases and inadmissible cases, comprising those who had begun an application or had status in another EU Member State.
The 15 safe countries of origin were Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Egypt, Georgia, India, Kosovo, Malawi, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Serbia, South Africa.
In total, 2,272 applications were processed during the transition period, of which 1,605 were from designated safe countries of origin under the 2015 Act. The remainder related to Dublin III and inadmissible cases.
89% of first instance decisions were refusals, with the remainder granted refugee status, subsidiary protection or permission to remain.
Some 75% of applicants appealed their first-instance decision, and of those with a decision by the end of the transition programme, 89% were refusals.
By 8 May, as part of the transition programme a total of 585 deportation orders were issued, 22 deportations were completed, and 62 people opted for voluntary return. The remainder of cases continued to be processed.
Statistics are not compiled in such a way as to provide the specific data requested by the Deputy on Judicial Reviews and the transition programme. Costs related to the transition programme are also not broken down in a manner described by the Deputy.
The introduction of the Pact means that in the medium to long-term, investment into the international protection system will show a return in the form of decreasing annual costs. There will be improved, faster processing and that will reduce the time an applicant remains in the system thereby reducing significant accommodation and other costs.
