Government caving to far-right on immigration, says Gannon

New legislation by Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan, which will make it unlawful for asylum application decisions or appeal decisions to take longer than three months, has been criticised by Social Democrats justice spokesperson Gary Gannon.

The plan, which was brought before Cabinet, will cut down on the number of oral hearings in the asylum-seeking process, and opens up the possibility of detention centres being opened.

The International Protection Bill 2025 will replace the pre-existing act, which was introduced in 2015, and will now allow officers within the International Protection system to directly issue decisions on returns.

O’Callaghan’s plan is one of the most substantial changes to Irish asylum policy in a generation, following on from recent moves from the government to take a harder stance on immigration issues.

However, Gannon said “This legislation is not about fixing what is broken – it is about chasing headlines, caving to far-right pressure, and abandoning our obligations to basic fairness and human rights.”

“The Minister has provided no roadmap to sufficient staffing for the International Protection Office or the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to adhere to the proposed deadlines, highlighting this announcement as nothing but pandering,” the Dublin Central TD said.

“Both bodies are suffering from significant backlogs – when under political pressure, scapegoating the vulnerable when you’ve no viable solutions is the oldest trick in the book.”

Gannon said, “imposing a three-month deadline for asylum decisions prioritises bureaucratic speed over human fairness.”

“International protection claims involve trauma, persecution, and complex histories. Arbitrary deadlines will inevitably lead to rushed, wrongful refusals – and the real risk of deporting people back into danger.

He noted “The proposal to limit oral hearings strikes at the heart of fair process – oral hearings are essential for many applicants who cannot fully tell their stories through paperwork, particularly those facing trauma, language barriers, or mistrust. ”

“Removing this safeguard will mean more unjust outcomes; handing direct deportation powers to protection officers removes a crucial layer of democratic oversight – deportations must remain politically accountable decisions.”