Ireland is in the process of redesigning its international protection system under intense political and time pressure. By June, the State has committed to transposing the EU Migration and Asylum Pact into domestic law. The International Protection Bill 2026, the mechanism for doing so, represents the most significant overhaul of Irish asylum law in three decades, and could rule the area for decades to come.
Last night, the Bill was guillotined before the Dáil had the chance to meaningfully discuss the majority of amendments tabled. These include amendments that would have prevented the unlawful detention of children, ensured that invasive medical examinations to determine the age of a child are conducted by qualified medical professionals and that would have greater protected victims of trafficking. The amendments would have protected the fundamental rights of vulnerable people. The Bill now progresses to the Seanad without any of them currently included.
The Government has stated that its objective is to create a faster and more efficient protection system. Efficiency is a legitimate policy aim. But increased speed carries risks. A system that accelerates decision-making without sufficient legal clarity, procedural guarantees and independent oversight risks embedding errors, unlawfulness and injustice. Instead of efficiency, what you get is increased litigation, prolonged delays and a loss of confidence in the system.
Ireland is not legislating in a vacuum. The EU Migration Pact is itself contested, and aspects of its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights may yet be tested before courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. This places a heightened responsibility on national legislators to ensure that domestic law is not only aligned with the pact, but also with national and international human rights and equality norms. The provisions of the Bill must be constitutionally sound and sit squarely within the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
READ MORE
Alongside other legal experts and stakeholders, we have engaged constructively during the pre-legislative process in recent months, although this process has been rushed and crucial provisions have yet to be published.
One of our most pressing concerns is the lack of clarity around what legal assistance is available at the earliest stages of the protection process. The Bill relies heavily on the new concept of “legal counselling” without defining what this entails, who may provide it, or how independence and quality will be ensured.
In a system designed to operate at speed, early legal advice is essential if access to justice is to be meaningful and effective. That means providing free legal aid to those who need it – because without it, applicants may fail to disclose critical information, particularly where experiences of trafficking, torture or sexual violence are involved, with potentially irreversible consequences.
Closely related to this are concerns regarding vulnerability assessments, and the tight time frame in which vulnerability assessments are due to take place. The Bill provides for an initial screening of applicants to identify categories of applicants who are deemed to be especially vulnerable. However, this approach does not adequately reflect the reality that trauma, disability, pregnancy or exploitation are not always disclosed at first contact. A system that lacks provision for ongoing assessment risks failing precisely those individuals most in need of protection, including victims of human trafficking.
The Bill also expands the use of accelerated and border procedures – these are not inherently unlawful, but they demand especially strong safeguards.
The combination of short timelines and broad ministerial discretion leaves a lot of room for error. The balance between speed and protection remains seriously concerning.
In any system that exercises coercive powers, including detention, over individuals who may already be vulnerable, oversight is essential. The proposed Independent Monitoring Mechanism and the role of the chief inspector of border procedures fall short of established standards for independence and effectiveness. Powers appear primarily regulatory rather than investigative, with limited clarity around the ability to examine serious incidents, including harm in detention settings. It is crucial that we strengthen statutory guarantees of independence, including the express provision for the authority to publish reports independently, and statutory provision for adequate funding via Oireachtas.
Importantly, significant changes to family reunification were not discussed in any real detail in the truncated Dáil debate. Refugees applying for family reunification already have permission to stay in Ireland, and family reunification amounts to a tiny percentage of inward migration. If this Bill passes into law, people applying to bring their families here, including children who have gone through horrendous ordeals, will face additional barriers.
The wider public debate on migration and housing shows how important it is to be precise in law and language. A recent ESRI study, funded by the Department of Justice, found that the majority of people in Ireland overestimate the number of migrants living in Ireland. It also suggested that focus on asylum seekers in public discourse and media coverage may contribute to these biases.
Ireland has navigated profound social and demographic change over recent decades. Our legal frameworks governing migration and international protection need to adapt and they need to be resourced. But this does not require us to sacrifice human rights and essential protections. Access to justice, legal certainty and protection should be the foundations of an effective system.
The International Protection Bill will shape the lives of people seeking safety in Ireland. It will also reflect the level of the State’s commitment to human rights and equality. This Bill deserves time, transparency and rigorous scrutiny. Rushed or incomplete legislation can offer short-term reassurance, but the long-term consequences for refugees and for our system of protection may be profound.
Liam Herrick is chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
