As I have already said, there are reasons, which I will return to, why this is the case.

Secondly, how are such applications investigated in Ireland? Under the current law, there is a very cumbersome process for investigating such applications. The current system is multi-layered and sequential. It requires that the investigation and decision relating to the refugee application, including any appeal that may be taken in that regard, be completed first. Only then may a person who is refused refugee protection, have their application for subsidiary protection investigated and decided upon at first instance and appealed thereafter in the event of a negative decision. A person who is refused international protection is then liable to deportation from the State. However, as part of that process, such persons may seek permission to remain in the State under immigration law.

Senators will recognise the unwieldiness of such a system and the need for a simpler, more streamlined and efficient procedure. However, even that is not the totality of the opportunities available to persons to have issues relating to their applications for international protection to be addressed.

Overlying all of what I have just described, is the opportunity for applicants for international protection to seek leave from the High Court to judicially review any, or every, decision made on their application as they make their way through the process. While recognising the entitlement of everyone to seek redress from the courts, in many instances the delay in finalising cases is often due to applicants challenging negative decisions by initiating judicial reviews at various stages of the process simply in order to delay the date of arrival at a final decision in their case and their departure from the State. The initiation of judicial review proceedings on any one decision can add between three and four years to the time it takes to reach a decision in respect of that application, such are the delays currently being experienced in the courts. It is estimated that approximately 2,000 applications cannot be finalised at present because of such legal challenges. Hence, the need for a single application procedure. This is the approach adopted in every other European Union member state.

As Senators may be aware, the Statement of Government Priorities 2014-2016 contains a number of commitments in the area of asylum. This was referred to by Senator Norris. Of particular relevance to the Bill being discussed today is the commitment to introduce a protection Bill to establish a single application procedure. Work on the Bill is ongoing in the Minister's Department and the expectation is that the Bill will be published at the start of 2015 and enacted by Easter 2015. In preparing the Bill, I understand the Minister's Department is also examining to what extent the new single procedure can be applied to persons currently in the protection determination process.

In addition, the Government committed to establishing an independent working group to report to Government on improvements with the protection process, including direct provision and supports for asylum seekers. The terms of reference and membership of the working group were announced last week. Among the issues to be considered by the working group is the length of time persons spend in the protection applications system, the non-execution of deportation orders, and the impacts that court proceedings have on the finalisation of decisions. These two initiatives will go a long way towards addressing the issues which have given rise to the Senator's Bill.

I might add that the Government has already introduced new statutory arrangements governing the processing of subsidiary protection applications in the State, following which significant inroads have been made in processing the backlog of cases involved. The European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013, introduced in November last year, substantially enhanced the arrangements for investigating subsidiary protection applications by replacing what was an entirely paper-based procedure undertaken in the Minister's Department, with an investigation procedure involving a personal interview, now undertaken by the Office of Refugee Applications Commissioner, and the right to an oral appeal before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal against any negative first instance decision. A panel of legally qualified persons was also established to assist the commissioner with the investigation of these applications.

Under these new arrangements, some 1,600 applicants have indicated their wish to proceed with the investigation of their applications while a further 205 persons have applied for subsidiary protection since November 2013. By 10 October, a total of 609 investigations, or 38%, had been completed. These new regulations have been widely welcomed by civil society.

Turning to the Bill before us today, while it is clearly well-intentioned and motivated by a concern, which the Minister herself shares, about the length of time people spend in the protection system, it could have potential negative consequences, perhaps not envisaged by the Senators concerned. Before going any further and for the avoidance of doubt, the Minister wishes to put it on the record that Ireland is not closed to immigrants. It must not be forgotten that 30,0000 students arrive here every year from outside the EU, the great majority of whom can work up to 20 hours a week in term time and 40 hours outside term time. The thousands of students here from other EU member states can obviously work on a completely unrestricted basis. Each year over the past number of years alone, over 80,000 people from outside the EU who have been allowed remain in the country longer than three months have, as they are required to in law, registered their presence in the State. The vast majority of these immigrants have the opportunity to work in the State. Moreover, last year alone, nearly 30,000 immigrants were granted Irish citizenship. Obviously they can all work on the same basis as any Irish citizen.

Having said that, the Minister considers that the Bill essentially amounts to a standing amnesty for those who would seek to make false protection claims in the knowledge that if they can hold out for four years they will gain residence status. This is a potential magnet for false protection claims and irregular migration, not least in that it also confers potential benefits in respect of family members.

Senators should be aware that in some cases these exceed those available to persons who use legal migration channels. False protection claims also delay the processing of genuine protection applications. The Bill also actively incentivises the evasion of deportation orders. Fundamentally, it fails to appreciate the distinction between the delays arising from the framework of the protection system itself and those generated by the actions of applicants.

The application of the proposed regularisation framework to persons seeking international protection, as compared with persons whose presence in the State is "irregular", is considered to be inappropriate.

Persons seeking international protection status are not irregularly present in the State, as such persons are legally present until such time as their protection application is finalised, at which point their temporary permission to reside in the State ceases to be valid. The State has a legal obligation under national and EU law to investigate all protection applications made in this jurisdiction. Applications must be examined individually and decisions based on the specific merits of each case.

In addition, where regularisation is to be applied in appropriate cases, Senators should be aware that in agreeing the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum at the European Council in October 2008, member states made specific commitments "to use only case-by-case regularisation, rather than generalised regularisation, under national law, for humanitarian or economic reasons". While the pact is not legally binding, the political commitment among member states, then and now, is clearly against any form of process that would in any way legitimise the status of persons present in the State without first examining the merits of their individual cases.

In Ireland's case there are also considerations based on maintaining the integrity of the common travel area with the UK, which must be taken into account. Any significant departure from well-established policies in this respect would have a major impact on the operation of the common travel area both here and in the United Kingdom.

It must also be emphasised that broad regularisation programmes are problematic, in particular as they could give rise to unpredictable and potentially costly impacts across the full range of public and social services.

Without going into the detail, the Bill does give rise to a number of significant questions, not least of which include: the lack of clarity therein in relation to what happens to extant protection applications in circumstances where the applicant stands to gain the automatic residency provided for in section 6; and the automaticity with which residence must be granted without any prior consideration of exclusion grounds of the type set out in section 8 of the Bill. At a minimum, national security and criminal background checks would have to be considered.