I have received no apologies thus far. I remind members to turn off their mobile phones or switch them to flight mode. This meeting has been convened to consider the Supplementary Estimates for Vote 20 - An Garda Síochána, Vote 21 - Prison Service, Vote 22 - Courts Service and Vote 24 - Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. The Estimates were referred to the committee on 12 November. I want to begin by thanking the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and his officials for attending and assisting in our consideration of the Estimates. I would also like to thank his office for the provision of the information related to the Estimates. What I propose is that the Minister make some brief opening remarks, after which I will invite members to contribute in the order in which they have indicated. The secretariat has provided a briefing setting out the detail of each Supplementary Estimate in tabular form for each Vote, with each one split into two tables. Table A deals with current expenditure and Table B deals with capital expenditure. In addition, the Department has provided a briefing document that goes into the detail of each Supplementary Estimate by Vote. As I said, we will begin with the Minister and we will allow members to come in on whichever Vote they wish to. We will then have some brief closing remarks from the Minister.

I remind members that in accordance with Standing Orders, discussion should be confined to items constituting the Supplementary Estimates. I also remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Minister, thank you for being here on what is a busy day. I invite you to begin your opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and his colleagues on the committee for making the time available to consider the Supplementary Estimates. As the Chairman said, the revised Supplementary Estimates are in respect of four Votes, namely, An Garda Síochána, Prison Service, Courts Service and Justice, Home Affairs and Migration.

This Supplementary Estimate will provide the justice Vote group with €94.28 million in net terms or €157 million in gross terms. This follows significant changes within the justice Vote group over the course of this year and significantly increased services in areas of priority for the Government and indeed for the committee. I will outline the main elements of this Supplementary Estimate in relation to each of the relevant Votes. I will start with Vote 20 - An Garda Síochána. The funding for 2025 reflects the commitment of the Government to ensuring that our communities are safe and that front-line gardaí have the resources they need to operate effectively. The budget provided to An Garda Síochána continues to increase, with an allocation of more than €2.3 billion net for 2025. As always, the Vote has been managed by offsetting some savings across subheads as the end of the financial year approaches and so the Garda Vote requires a net Supplementary Estimate of €20.4 million, which is about 0.87% of the total allocation in 2025. This Supplementary Estimate comprises a gross expenditure requirement of €60 million, offset by a projected surplus in appropriations-in-aid receipts of €39.6 million, resulting in a net added requirement of €20.4 million for the Vote. This funding supports overtime requirements, including the necessary costs associated with the policing of recent public order incidents, which members will be aware of. It will also fund additional operational costs associated with demand-led policing, including increased immigration-related activity and deportations.

Expanding on these points, this supplementary funding request is principally driven by the following. There is an additional €42.4 million funding for Garda overtime to cover operational demands, including public order policing. A total of €30.7 million is provided for non-pay expenditure including expenses arising from the increased number of people arrested and detained in Garda stations for questioning, the increased cost of utilities and related operational costs, Road Traffic Act expenses and costs associated with greater numbers of vehicles impounded following the successful introduction of online access to the Irish motor insurance database, and other areas, including costs associated with planning and preparation for next year’s EU Presidency. A sum of €18 million in surplus receipts relating to additional superannuation contributions is offsetting expenditure in other subheads.

The subheads with the largest savings include clothing and accessories, where a saving of €12 million relates to contracts that will not now fall due until 2026, and superannuation, with a saving of €16.5 million. This saving is particularly welcome as it is due to there being significantly fewer retirees this year.

In relation to capital expenditure, no supplementary funding is required in 2025. Savings of €21.3 million, due to the timing of some large capital building projects, will be used to fund additional requirements in other capital subheads in 2025, including ICT of €5 million, transport of €8.5 million and aircraft of €7.6 million. Capital funding of €17.3 million will be carried forward to support projects in 2026.

This year has seen a total of four intakes of new Garda recruits, with the final group of 223 entering Templemore yesterday to begin their training as gardaí. This is the largest intake in over ten years and brings this year’s total to 794. I had the privilege of being present with the Taoiseach at the most recent passing-out ceremony in Templemore last Friday, which saw 194 new gardaí join their colleagues on the front line. I was also delighted to welcome 17 new members of the Garda Reserve, who have also completed their training. I am sure all members join me in wishing the new gardaí and reservists well as they take up their new roles in stations nationwide this week. Budget 2026 provides the funding to continue this growth and ongoing recruitment throughout 2026, with funding for up to 1,000 new gardaí and 200 Garda staff, along with my intention to support increasing the reserve to over 600. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Garda members for the outstanding work they undertake on a daily basis in communities the length and breadth of the country. I am especially pleased to strengthen the resources available to An Garda Síochána, including underpinning and supporting its continuing reform and modernisation programme.

I will now move to Vote 21 - Prison Service. A net Supplementary Estimate of €27.86 million is required in 2025 for the Prison Service Vote. This supplementary comprises a gross expenditure requirement of €31 million, offset by a projected surplus in appropriations-in-aid of just over €3 million, giving a net additional requirement of €27.86 million for the Prison Service.

The budget I am providing to the Prison Service continues to increase to unprecedented levels, with an allocation of more than €514 million net for 2025. The funding for prisons is supporting additional staffing hours needed to maintain safe custody in the context of very significant increases in prisoner numbers. Funding also supports additional operational expenses, including prisoner care and rehabilitation. I am also providing funding of €13.86 million for extra additional hours, which have been necessary to provide prison escorts for the larger numbers of prisoners, manage prison overcrowding and support safe prisoner supervision and care. For 2025, it is estimated that approximately 350 staff will be recruited. That is approximately 300 recruit prison officers and 50 other grades.

One of the larger areas in the non-pay current expenditure subheads across the Vote relates to prisoner care and rehabilitation services of €9.2 million. Understandably, these costs are driven by the substantially higher number of people in prison, which is impacting demand for medical, catering, work training and mental health services. A total of €5.2 million relates to medical costs and €1.5 million to food provision. There is a projected surplus in appropriations-in-aid receipts of just over €3 million, which is mainly accounted for by additional superannuation contributions. This has also reduced the net Supplementary Estimate requirement.

To date this year, I have visited more than half of the country’s prisons. I have invariably been very impressed by the dedication and skill of the staff and, indeed, the prisoners I met, who I never judge. They have already been judged by society. It is not my job, when meeting prisoners, to judge them again. I pay tribute to the Prison Service for its work in managing what is a very difficult situation.

I will move to Vote 22, the Courts Service, which is a small technical Supplementary Estimate of €1,000. Surplus appropriations-in-aid of €999,000 offset a gross requirement for €1 million. The supplementary is due mainly to increased costs of interpretation and translation skills, jury meals and transport. These costs are offset by underspends in other subheads and a surplus in courts fee income of just under €1 million. A total of €5 million in capital funding will be brought forward as capital carryover into 2026.

I will deal with Vote 24 for the Department of justice. A net Supplementary Estimate of €46 million is required for 2025 in respect of the justice Vote; current funding of €45 million and capital of €1 million. The supplementary comprises a gross expenditure requirement of €65 million, which is offset by a projected surplus in appropriations-in-aid of €19 million, giving a net additional requirement of €46 million in the justice Vote. This is principally driven by additional expenditure associated with delivering shorter processing times in international protection and other immigration areas, and to increase the number of removals and deportations. My Department is also undertaking significant preparatory work to ensure the successful implementation next year of the international protection Act, once it is enacted.

The investment includes additional pay and non-pay of €18.9 million and €37.2 million, respectively. These are the support costs associated with delivering on policies and programmes, with which committee members will be familiar, as well as the day-to-day operations needed to carry out these functions. The main increases are: €13.7 million in fees for translation and interpreter services, international protection panel members and support work undertaken by the International Organization for Migration; €9.5 million for legal costs; €3 million for postal services; and €14.7 million for the cost of new technology to support the expanding organisation and significant modernisation programmes in immigration and international protection.

The Supplementary Estimate funding for my Department’s Vote also supports a number of other important expenditure areas, including additional payments to victims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme of €7.2 million. Members will recall I also provided a further €2 million for this scheme in September, bringing total expenditure this year to nearly €18 million. I was honoured to meet many dedicated youth workers at my Department’s youth justice conference last week, so I am pleased to be in a position to support the expanded, now nationwide, coverage of the youth diversion projects with €4.9 million. Funding is also provided for the demand-driven areas of criminal legal aid, that is, €22 million, while €6.2 million is provided for the Coroner Service, which relates to the final costs associated with phase 1 of the Stardust redress scheme, as well as the operational costs of the Dublin coroner's office.

There are offsetting savings in a number of other subheads, with the largest element of the offset relating to international protection and Ukraine accommodation costs, which provide a net offset of €32.6 million, including international protection seekers accommodation savings of €13.2 million. The Chairman will be interested to note these are primarily attributable to my Department’s recent contract and rate negotiations with providers, which yielded savings for the year, along with the termination of up to 22 accommodation contracts over the past few months. Ukraine accommodation and related costs are showing a net saving of €10.7 million, primarily attributable to an exit from local authority emergency accommodation due to reduced demand and lower operating and support costs. A total of €24.6 million of savings from current funding has been transferred to capital and is being utilised to meet the cost of the final units under the rapid build programme. In relation to capital funding, this Supplementary Estimate includes a net increase of €1 million driven by a gross increase of €5 million offset by small underspends totalling €4 million, where the timing of procurement and resourcing has impacted.

I was pleased to secure in July last, under the review of the NDP, an overall capital allocation for the justice sector of €2.18 billion from 2026 to 2030. This is a hugely significant level of investment that will enable the delivery of a large range of priority capital projects right across the justice sector. I will bring a sectoral investment plan for the justice sector to Government in the coming weeks and intend to publish this plan in due course so the committee will be able to read it.

I recommend the Supplementary Estimates to the committee. I thank the Chairman for the time.

I thank the Minister for that. As indicated, I will ask members to come in on any of the Votes in turn. I ask them to keep the exchanges to in or around ten minutes so we can allow everybody in, but people can come in as necessary thereafter.

I thank the Aire for his presentation. When I went through the Estimates, a few figures jumped out at me, but one that jumped out at me more than most was the €870,000 left unspent in the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence allocation. The reason it jumped out should be obvious but there was a presentation in the audiovisual room last week by three survivors of domestic and sexual-based abuse. They talked about the supports they received when they were able to flee from their violent partner at the time, where they had 12 to 18 months of support and transitional housing with Cuan. It is now the policy that Cuan will only provide a 12-week period for a person - a woman - who is fleeing domestic or sexual-based violence in the home. That presentation from those survivors will stay with me for a very long time. I do not believe anybody is cruel here, far from it, but that policy is cruel.

A person fleeing from domestic, gender-based or sexual violence in the home cannot be expected to find the courage that is required to make that flight from their home into a form of sanctuary provided by the State, with their children, readjust their life, and build back up their whole person within 12 weeks. Will the Minister clarify whether the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence allocation that shows an €870,000 underspend or reduction in the Supplementary Estimate is because services could not be delivered? For example, were there staffing, HR or programme delays? Will he speak to what specific supports were not provided as a result? Will he explain the rationale for ending the 12 to 18 months support for transitional accommodation formerly provided through various services? What is this policy decision about? Is it a contractual issue? Does the Minister have the number of how many women and children sought refuge or supported accommodation in 2025 but could not be placed due to a lack of capacity? Does the Department track outcomes for those who are turned away, including how many ultimately returned to unsafe homes? How many refuge spaces, safe home placements and transitional housing units are currently being funded by the Department or Cuan under contract? How does that compare to the commitments in the zero tolerance strategy for short-, medium- and long-term accommodation?

I thank the Deputy for his question, which relates to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. He raised the issue in respect of Cuan. To get straight to the heart of his question, he wants to know why there is an €870,000 underspend. My understanding is that saving is attributable to delays in staff recruitment. I have to say to the Deputy, when we look at the work that is being done in terms of refuges, I am pleased to say there has been considerable progress in the past year. I just opened a refuge a number of weeks ago in Ringsend. I was at the opening of a new refuge in Coolock prior to that. In 2025, 22 domestic violence units are to be delivered.

Four have been delivered in Louth, bringing capacity to 163. A further 18 are to be delivered by the end of the year in Dublin city and south city. This will bring domestic violence refuge capacity to 181. A further 32 were due to be under construction by the end of the year. They are in Dún Laoghaire, Fingal and Louth.

Deputy Gannon referred to the fact that a woman fleeing domestic violence in the home should not necessarily be limited in the amount of time she can spend in the refuge. I agree with him. When I visit refuges around the country and speak with the people in charge of them - I have met very many of these people - I am informed that they do not have fixed rules about saying to a woman who comes in that she must leave after a certain period. Many women, regrettably, have to stay there for a significant period. Obviously, the difficult part arises when a woman has to look for alternative accommodation after the period of refuge has expired. The Deputy might agree with me, however, that we cannot allow refuges to become places that are viewed as being semi-permanent accommodation. That undermines the whole purpose of such accommodation.

I am watching the time.

Yes, but in terms of what is happening, there is no strict rule saying that a woman has to move on. I am sure Deputy Gannon will agree that we also need to recognise that it should not be the woman, who is the victim, who has to leave the home.

Absolutely. We should get the abuser out of the house, but, too often, that does not happen in a scenario where somebody is fleeing and looking for sanctuary. If the Minister is not aware of this , he should have a look at the 12-week period Cuan is initiating as a policy because it outlines the change.

In the context of the discussion we are having, I find the reference to that sum as a saving difficult. It is not; it is money that is unspent for women who are fleeing home and desperately need saving. That is not an underspend. I would not characterise it as a saving to the State.

I will move on to prisons. The Minister said that he has visited more than half the prisons in the country at this point. I presume he went to Mountjoy, which is one of the closest prisons. That is currently at 130% bed capacity. The women's prison in Mountjoy is at 158% bed capacity. Limerick women's prison is at 155% bed capacity, while the male prison is at 114% capacity. The current total prison population is at 122% capacity. The Minister said he met people there who do not deserve to be judged a second time.

Yes.

I fully agree, but the conditions in which they are being incarcerated are creating further conditions in which they do not really have any choice. It is compounding trauma and exposing them to conditions that are not suitable for habitation, particularly in view of the level of overcrowding. Which of the figures does the Minister feel is going to address overcrowding next year?

In fairness, Deputy Gannon consistently raises prison overcrowding. This is an issue of extreme concern to me. I have not visited Mountjoy as Minister, but I have visited it as a TD. The prisons I have been to are Limerick men's and women's prisons, Cork, Loughan House, Shelton Abbey, Cloverhill and Wheatfield. I acknowledge the excellent work that goes on there. There is a lot of very good productivity from staff there. The work of the prisoners as well is very effective.

In terms of the figures the Deputy highlighted, for me there is no short-term solution. The long-term solution is put in place. I want to see 1,500 new prison spaces by 2028 or 2029. It might take until 2030, but that is what I want to see. I agree with Deputy Gannon that we cannot build our way out of a prison crisis, but notwithstanding that, our population has increased very significantly and the capacity of our prisons did not increase correspondingly.

Deputy Gannon referred to Limerick women's prison being at 155% capacity. That is correct, but it does not give the full picture. Limerick women's prison is one of the finest prisons I have ever been to. It is also one of the best developments that has been done in this country in recent times in terms of the facilities that are available. The figures are very high because in a lot of the cells, as we would call them, although it is a bit of a misnomer – many women share the room with another woman. That is the reason why it has risen to 155%. I want to see prison capacity going down in terms of prison overcrowding going down, but the only way to achieve that is by providing and building more spaces. I have put in place the capital for that.

I disagree with the Minister. I do not think we can build ourselves out of this crisis, particularly given the levels of recidivism in this country where close to seven out of 10 people will reoffend within three years. We are not going to build ourselves out of this crisis. I am not against prisons, I just think they should be places of rehabilitation. In their current form, all too often, that does not happen.

The Minister talked about the transposition of the International Protection Bill 2025. We had pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill within the last month. It was an absolute disaster. The heads of the Bill were there as placeholders. Questions went completely unanswered. Nobody was able to give us answers on parts of the Bill in relation to detention and on all sorts of issues. I asked a couple of parliamentary questions on the seven-day screening process, which is proposed under the International Protection Bill, which is vital if we are to meet the targets the Minister set out. I wrote to the Department and the Department of Health asking what costings have been allocated for this. The Department of Health said it had not conducted an assessment of the costs associated with establishing and operating a screening process and that any proposals for establishing such a process would be considered as part of the annual Estimates process. How much is going to be spent on the International Protection Bill and where is it going to be found before June of next year?

The drafting of the Bill is a priority. As I am sure Deputy Gannon can appreciate, it is a very big body of work. I hope to be able to get a draft back from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel by the end of this month or early next month. It is going to be a huge task for me and this committee in respect of it. I thank the committee for the pre-legislative scrutiny that it did. I know there were issues because parts of it were not complete, but there is an urgency in respect of it.

In terms of the amount of money that will be available to give, Deputy Gannon's question is not about the cost of drafting it, but about the cost of giving effect to the provisions within it. There will not be a shortage of money for the purpose of giving effect to it. The reason for that is that if we can have an efficient system where applications are processed very promptly, we are ultimately going to save ourselves money because, as he knows, the huge amount of money that is being spent on international protection is predominantly on the accommodation aspect of it. If people have lengthy applications that take a considerable period of time, that incurs huge costs for the State. If we can put greater investment into the processing, that will save us money in the long term.

Where is the money going to come from if it is not in these Revised Estimates and was not in the recent budget? What has been allocated so far for it? The Bill is coming into law in June.

My understanding is that there is money in the budget for 2026 that went through. There is money there for increased funding on immigration, and it is going to be for the purpose of efficiencies in the system.

At present, we are piloting the type of system that will operate once the Act comes into effect in June next year. We are doing it in respect of the safe countries and it is operating very effectively. We are getting decisions promptly and appeals processed very quickly. The money is there to do is at present in respect of the 15 safe countries, so we will have the funding available to do it across the board.

I am going to move on to Deputy Ward.

I thank the Minister for his opening statement. I want to ask him about subhead A4 of Vote 21, which relates to prisoner care and rehabilitation. It is stated that there is €9.2 million in additional funding for this service in the budget. Going on basis of the Minister's opening statement, am I right in saying that out of the €9.2 million, there is €5.2 million for medical fees and €1.5 million for additional food? Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. There is €5.2 million for medical costs and €1.5 million for food provision.

Basically, that would leave an additional €2.5 million for rehabilitation services? Does the Minister think that will address the issues the prison population is facing? For example, the progression unit in Mountjoy is still closed. It has not yet reopened. That has created a huge gap in prison services. Almost 2,000 prisoners are waiting for psychology appointments and mental health supports. Also, almost 1,000 prisoners are waiting for an addiction support. Due to the fact that many of these prisoners are sometimes in prison for a short term, they are waiting so long that they are released from prison before they get any services whatsoever. Does the Minister think the additional €2.5 million will meet the demands in prison?

One of the issues I have in terms of prisons is filling posts. That is an issue and the money is not the problem. The Irish Prison Psychology Service has the following authorised posts: a head of service, a principal psychologist manager, a principal specialist psychologist, 13 senior psychologists, 23 staff grade psychologists and 14 assistant psychologists.

They are what exists at present. The IPS has the following live panels in place awaiting assignment: eight staff grade psychologists and six senior psychologists. The total number of individuals on live panels is 14. A live competition for the principal psychologist manager post is in progress. While there are issues in terms of filling those 14 posts, the money is available for them.

Okay. Are there any plans to reopen the progression unit? That has caused a huge gap in the prison services. I know there has been an increase in the prison population for prisoners in Arbour Hill for sexual offences and they have moved into parts of the progression unit. That has caused huge upheaval in Mountjoy in relation to people accessing the care they need. These are prisoners who have progressed to the stage of rehabilitation and are doing the right things. That service is not there for them.

I appreciate that. I do not have an answer for the Deputy in respect of the progression unit. I will find out in the Department and come back to him in respect of it. I want those services to be available for prisoners because they are important, particularly for prisoners who have made the decision that they want to try to rehabilitate themselves.

I will follow up with the Minister on that one. I raised something last week with the Garda Commissioner when he was before the justice committee about the increase in criminal activity, intimidation and violence in my area in Balgaddy. The Commissioner informed me of a special Dublin crime task force made up of 50 specialised trained gardaí that can be deployed into areas that are experiencing an increase in criminal activity. I have also written to the Minister in relation to this matter. In his opening statement, the Minister said funding is there for costs associated with demand-led policing. This is definitely demand-led policing. Will there be additional resources for the Dublin crime task force? Will we see an increase on the current membership of 50?

I am aware of the Dublin crime task force. It has been very effective in the work that it does. When it comes to the provision of funding for it, that is a matter for the Commissioner. I will provide the money generally to the Garda in terms of the Garda Vote. Operationally, the Commissioner decides where to invest his money in terms of which units or forces. It sounds like he is positively disposed towards it. It is something I would certainly commend him on and agree with. They have been very effective in securing a lot of high-profile convictions. That has happened in recent times. I would like to see that force continue.

If that force was deployed in an area that was going through an awful lot of trauma as happens every so often - it could be my area this week or another person's area the following week, especially in and around Dublin - that increased visibility would allow areas to be able to breathe and get on with their everyday routine. In relation to this and to the youth justice programmes, this week, South Dublin County Council provided funding for a youth justice programme in my area, namely, the Connect 4 Project. It is really welcome and is needed. It is in response to what I was talking about in Balgaddy. The council came and responded to that. Is there any flexibility in relation to youth diversion projects to have the kind of model there is for demand policing for an area that demands additional resources for youth justice? Is there any flexibility in this budget for that?

The youth diversion projects are now rolled out nationally. We have them across the country. They are very effective. I was at a conference in Croke Park last week where people providing these services under the youth diversion projects were present. I am extremely impressed with the work that they are doing. In terms of the areas they focus on, again, I do not start directing them where to go or where to focus but it is clearly the case that the places they should be concentrating on are areas where young people get into trouble. They are the people who need to be diverted from a pathway of criminality. That is going on. For 2025, the funding allocated to overall youth justice services was €33 million. That will increase to almost €40 million in 2026. A considerable amount of money is being put into it. I am happy to put that money into it because I can see the success of it. Sometimes, the Probation Service and the people involved in youth diversion projects do not get the recognition for the work that they are doing. Generally it is only the kid who gets into trouble who gets the attention, whereas a huge amount of successful work is being carried out by probation and youth diversion projects that is having the effect of diverting kids. We need to give that more recognition.

The Minister will not hear any arguments from me because I used to work in that line of work. When I was first elected to South Dublin County Council in 2019, I was calling for additional funding for youth diversion in this particular area that I was talking about. It has taken until 2025 for that to come in. It is not just me calling for it; it is cross-party and residents are calling for it. When we can see an increase in activity in an area, especially around youth crime and antisocial behaviour or criminal activity, is there flexibility within the budget to deal with that situation as it is ongoing?

I do not think there is any issue in terms of funding being available. First, on Garda visibility, I am sure the Commissioner told the committee it is his plan to roll out high-visibility policing throughout the country. He has done it in Dublin. He is doing it at present in Cork. He wants to roll it out to the suburbs as well. If we get high-visibility policing throughout our communities, that is going to be very effective. Where you have high-visibility policing and issues in respect of crime, they are the areas where the youth diversion programmes should be focusing on.

I agree with the Minister. We are not just going to police our way out of these situations. We need a holistic approach.

In the last couple of minutes I have, I want to touch on Saggart. I do not want to conflate the location of an IPAS centre in any way whatsoever with an increase in criminality in an area. That is not where I am coming from. Common sense, however, says that anywhere there is an increase in population, there will be more strain put on Garda resources. There are already limited Garda resources in the area. Rathcoole Garda station is still operating on a part-time basis. I have asked for more resources. I actually put in a parliamentary question that was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle to say it was not the Minister's responsibility but that of the Garda Commissioner. They answered the question. These are constant asks by the community engagement teams. Every time we have a community engagement meeting, they are asking in relation to the additional resources in Rathcoole, which would be able to service the people of Rathcoole, Saggart, Newcastle and beyond. Are there plans to have a full-time Garda station in the Rathcoole area?

The Deputy is absolutely right to raise the issue about Saggart. Of course you are going to need more Garda resources if the population of an area increases. That is a fully responsible thing to say. In terms of what is happening, I have met Deputy Ward and the other TDs from both constituencies. Everyone says they want to see more Garda resources there. I was encouraged by the fact that we have indicated that land can be made available. If it is the case that we need a new Garda station in the area, that can be done.

Can I be honest with the Minister? We can talk about a new Garda station but we cannot even man the Garda stations that we have at the moment.

On opening Rathcoole Garda station for longer than it is open at present, I have raised that with the Commissioner. I will raise it with him again. I do not get into the business of telling the Commissioner to do this or open this Garda station. We had examples previously of Ministers trying to direct the Garda Commissioner-----

These are some of the criticisms and I have raised them with the Minister in relation to the community engagement team. The engagement team is engaging with the community and feeding that back to the Minister and the Department and are not getting the answers back on the additional Garda resources. I know it is not the Minister's business to tell the Garda Commissioner, but he can also feed back in and tell him exactly what the residents are saying.

I cannot give the Deputy any guarantees in respect of it. I hope community engagement from the Department is good. I know the officials in my Department are very committed to it. It is a very difficult period for the Deputy's constituents. I fully appreciate that. It was a very unpleasant experience. The gardaí did a very good job and now further work is to be done in terms of rebuilding community engagement. I am aware of the consequences and the effort that needs to come from my Department in terms of engaging more with the Deputy's community.

I thank the Minister. A vote has been called. We will take a quick break and ask members to come back as soon as the vote is over.

We are back in public session. I call Deputy Brabazon.

I thank the Minister for his detailed presentation of the Estimates. I welcome the allocation of additional funds, particularly for overtime in An Garda Síochána. It underscores the Government’s commitment to a high-visibility strategy out on the streets. We have done a lot of work in the city centre. We have a lot more to do, however, especially in the suburbs of Dublin. In my constituency, an extra three gardaí have been allocated to Coolock, two have been allocated to Raheny and one has been allocated to Clontarf. That is all very welcome, but we do need a hell of a lot more in this regard. I also welcome that 17 additional members of the Garda Reserve have completed their training.

On the Estimates, when there is increased Garda visibility and presence on the streets, one would expect a commensurate increase in the numbers of prosecutions and custodial sentences handed down and that the courts will, of course, be busier. I note that additional funds have been given in this regard, which is very welcome. The issue of prison spaces was mentioned earlier. Where are we at with Thornton Hall? It is important that the project be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity.

I welcome the increase of €500,000 for the Criminal Assets Bureau. The Department recently gave funds to various community organisations around the country arising from that. It was a clear signal from the Government that crime will not pay. I welcome that and the increased resource there.

I have a few queries on decreases in funding, particularly for the Parole Board. The allocation for crime prevention measures is down by approximately €1.1 million. Funding for Forensic Science Ireland and the Office of the State Pathologist is also down. Deputy Gannon mentioned work on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, and the Minister dealt with that. In the light of our taking on the European Presidency in the second six months of next year and the many concerns regarding the various risks that might be associated with that, something that stood out for me was the decrease of €1.7 million for the National Cyber Security Centre. Will the Minister address that, if appropriate?

I agree with the Deputy on wanting to see high-visibility policing. That is why the Revised Estimate in respect of Garda overtime is so important. The Commissioner wants to see high-visibility policing not just in city centres but rolled out to the suburbs and elsewhere. He has a plan and I have confidence in him and his plan. I have seen already in the recent allocations where that is being rolled out to suburbs. Obviously, if I can keep getting greater numbers into An Garda Síochána, it gives the Commissioner the resources needed to give effect to his plan for high-visibility policing in cities, towns, suburbs and, we hope, everywhere.

The Deputy asked about Thornton Hall. Funding is available in the national development plan for its development as a prison. However, I do not want to mislead the Deputy. Work on it will not commence until the end of the five-year period covered by the latest national development plan. It will not happen this year or next but there is a clear direction of travel in respect of it. We need it to happen for the purpose of providing the necessary spaces, considering the rise in our population.

I agree with the Deputy on the allocation of further resources to the Criminal Assets Bureau. It does extremely important and effective work. It shows to the public that crime does not pay. People like to see those who have made money through criminal activity having their assets seized. One of the benefits, as the Deputy indicated, is that I now have a community safety fund to which people can apply for local community safety projects. It distributed approximately €4 million this year and it will go up next year to around €4.6 million. It is a very useful fund and I encourage local community groups to apply for it.

Regarding the Parole Board and SFI, the reason the figures have gone down is that staffing did not rise as quickly as expected in those bodies. The National Cyber Security Centre is now under my ministerial responsibility. There was an issue in terms of procurement that has resulted in the moneys not being spent to the full amount. However, as the Deputy will know from looking at the budget for 2026, a huge investment is going into the centre. It is a body we will have to resource to a greater extent as time goes on because the threat from cyberattacks continues to grow.

Are there specific reasons that the Thornton Hall project will not progress sooner?

I have authority to construct 1,400 to 1,500 prison spaces between now and 2027 and I want to see them prioritised and built as quickly as possible. In fairness to the Prison Service, its estate section is very competent and effective. Prisons are built on time and on budget. We saw that with the new Cork Prison and we see it with the Limerick prisons. A priority at present is what can produce spaces in the quickest possible time. What will do that are the proposed extensions of the prisons I have set out publicly, including Cloverhill and Midlands prisons and other prisons where we will see extensions. That is the priority in the short term.

I thank the Minister.

I thank the Minister for attending today and giving us such a detailed breakdown of the additional expenditure under the different Votes. My question is quite simple. What will the budget be for An Garda Síochána in respect of next year's European Presidency? When the Garda Commissioner and assistant commissioner were in with us last week, they were not sure what the budget will be. That is a concern for me considering that they are trying to do procurement and make plans for how they can be as effective as possible in the context of any unexpected events that might happen during the Presidency.

The Deputy has asked a very direct question but, unfortunately, I cannot give a direct answer at this time, not because I am being evasive but because we have not yet identified the actual cost. That is the issue at present. Officials in my Department are in discussions with the Garda in respect of this issue. As I am sure the Deputy appreciates, the Presidency is a huge task for this country. It starts on 1 July next year and will last for six months. We saw from what happened in Denmark that there can be threats posed to the country holding the Presidency that it has not experienced previously.

A considerable amount of money will have to be expended to prepare us for the Presidency, particularly when it comes to policing. I have already had some engagement with An Garda Síochána, as have my officials, in respect of what the actual cost will be. The Garda put forward figures and my officials then go back and engage with it on the figures. We do not just accept the figure put forward by An Garda Síochána. I am aware of some of the figures that have been mentioned by the Garda but nothing has yet been agreed. I cannot say to the Deputy at this stage what the cost will be. However, I am fairly satisfied to say that the budget for it will be provided. There will be sufficient funding available to An Garda Síochána to ensure the Presidency is properly and competently policed.

That is great. Will it include contingency funds?

Will the Deputy clarify for what contingency that might be?

When the Garda Commissioner and assistant commissioner were in, we spoke about the strength of the force. "Concern" is my word, not theirs, but they raised the issue of overtime and the question of having the required personnel. There was a request to ensure two big events are not held at the same time. My concern is how we will manage in a scenario where one big event is being held and then there is another Storm Éowyn, a cyberattack or something we are not expecting. That is why I asked about contingency plans. I am conscious that in the case of the drone attack in Denmark, for example, a contingency plan was not in place. The police there had the equipment they needed to shield from the drone attack but the van carrying it was in an accident and there was no back-up equipment. I would just like to be doubly sure we are planning for something like that.

The Garda has ongoing engagement with other police forces, particularly the Danish police. Gardaí are learning from the Danish about their experience of policing during the Presidency. Are gardaí aware of and prepared for the types of eventualities that may arise? Yes, they are.

It is going to put pressure on Garda resources elsewhere, to being frank. It is a big event. The European Political Community, EPC, summit will be here as well. Huge numbers of Heads of State will be coming here. That just eats up a huge amount of Garda resources in terms of providing protection officers for the individuals who are over here. We saw what happened in Denmark when there was a drone attack on the airport and appropriate or sufficient defences were not in place. The Garda is aware of all the eventualities that will arise. Ultimately, we will be in a position to ensure, as we have previously, that the Presidency will be policed competently. It is, however, going to be a drain on the resources of An Garda Síochána. There is no doubt about that.

I know the Minister said this, but I want to be certain that the money the Garda needs will be provided. Its representatives hoped they would have the relevant figure by the end of November. It is hard to plan when you do not know how much you can spend. Human nature being human nature, we usually underspend and go for the second option rather than the top option if we are not sure the money will be there. Will the Minister respond on that? It is a concern of mine to try to support the men and women who are working and planning so hard as part of An Garda Síochána.

There are ongoing discussions in my Department. Gardaí have come to the Department to estimate the cost of policing the Presidency. My Department comes back to them and says we need to look at that again. There is ongoing engagement. In fairness to An Garda Síochána, it is accepting issues we have raised. We are accepting issues it has raised. The money will be there to meet the need, but it is the case that at present we do not have an agreed figure for the cost. As the deputy commissioner said previously, that will have to be agreed at some stage this year.

Yes, before the end of the year. That is excellent. I thank the Minister. I am happy to hear that.

I will move to another aspect of the additional spending in the budget for An Garda Síochána. We spoke about this issue previously. In terms of the See Something, Say Something initiative, is there any space for rolling out something like that? The deputy commissioner said on the previous occasion that it was not going to be hugely expensive to roll out. I support what Deputy Brabazon and the other members of the committee said about high-visibility policing. The Minister and the Garda Commissioner have both said it. In rural areas, such as the area I come from, high-visibility policing is not as accessible because resources are fewer. If we need more visibility, that tends to happen in urban centres. An initiative such as that committed to in the programme Government, the See Something, Say Something initiative, enables people in rural areas to feel connected. They might never need to call An Garda Síochána but would know that they could send a text if they see, for example, antisocial behaviour. There are increasingly high levels of drug use in rural areas. People often feel powerless about that but it might help if they were to have the comfort of knowing they could contact An Garda Síochána simply and easily by sending a text. Is there funding for that? I would be very grateful if it could be rolled out in Carlow.

I was with the Deputy in Carlow Garda station not that long ago. The resources for the officers in Carlow Garda station are very good. I commend the gardaí on the work they do there. In terms of the See Something, Say Something initiative, I am not going to start directing the Commissioner and micromanaging how he decides to spend his money. However, I take the Deputy's point about high-visibility policing. It is obvious and apparent in cities or large towns. In rural areas, we need to consider a different mechanism to ensure the public is aware that gardaí are available to them. That is notwithstanding the fact that you cannot expect to see a garda in every rural road, which is obviously the case.

I accept that.

I will talk to the Commissioner about See Something, Say Something. It is a useful mechanism. What is most important is that we use technology for the purpose of ensuring that the public, particularly in rural areas, can contact the Garda and feel safe in their contact with it.

I welcome the Revised Estimate and the inclusion of money for Tralee courthouse. That is very good news. In the context of courthouses, and in particular family courts, we need to consider privacy, particularly for cases where the parties involved are clustered in the one room or, as is the case in Kerry, outside the door of the court. That needs to be addressed.

I am hearing about an increase in incidents of drink-spiking in Kerry. This has been happening for a while and is of huge concern. Is there funding in the budget for this particular area? What are the current protocols? We should establish a national pathway across Garda stations and hospitals to ensure that suspected spiking incidents are treated as crimes and investigated properly and promptly, and that the appropriate clinical and policing protocols are put in place. When a patient presents at an accident and emergency department and reports a suspected spiking, I am informed that the hospital does not carry out toxicology tests. That needs to be addressed. It is an area of concern. My office has been contacted and I have been contacted personally by individuals and mothers. I know it is a difficult area. Some people may have a couple of drinks and the next thing is that they do not remember anything and end up somewhere they do not want to be.

The first issue the Deputy raised was that of Tralee courthouse. From engaging repeatedly with him and the Minister, Deputy Foley, I know that they really want a new courthouse for Tralee. I visited the old courthouse, which is a magnificent building and outside of which there is a cannon from the Crimean war. I am conscious that, as the Deputy said, it is not a suitable environment for people who find themselves in traumatic circumstances to prepare themselves for court hearings. That is why the development of a new and modern courthouse facility at Tralee is a key objective for me and the Courts Service, and has been included in the national development plan.

I was interested to hear what the Deputy had to say about spiking in Kerry. Obviously, that is a criminal offence. There is a reason why drinks are spiked. People do not just spike a drink for the purpose of doing so. They want to make a person particularly vulnerable for reasons that can be very sinister. Anyone who believes they have been subjected to spiking or subsequent assault should obviously report it to the Garda. In my opinion, the Garda is very effective in responding to allegations of gender-based or domestic violence. The impact it has on people is very significant. I note what the Deputy said about the absence of toxicology testing. If an allegation is made by an individual that they believe their drink was spiked and they were subsequently assaulted, that will be thoroughly investigated by An Garda Síochána. I would have thought that if the Garda believes a matter requires further investigation, it would involve gardaí looking for toxicology reports in respect of the individual who alleges their drink was spiked.

I will ask a couple of questions and then we can allow members to come back in. I will follow up on Deputy Brabazon's questions about these Estimates and the Prison Service. I happen to agree with both the Minister and Deputy Gannon in that I believe there is a need for additional prison spaces. However, I also firmly believe that the prisons are not operating as they should be. They are not fulfilling their primary purpose, which is to ensure that those people who enter the prison service come out less likely to commit crime. In fact, the levels of recidivism in this State are shameful, particularly in respect off young offenders, who, statistically speaking, are incredibly likely to reoffend on release. That says we are failing on training and rehabilitation.

I want to know if the overcrowding, or how the overcrowding, of the Prison Service impacts on that core function. Can the Minister point to any immediate issues or services that have been curtailed because of the challenges? For example, I have heard reports of the bakery in Mountjoy having been closed. Is that true? Was that as a result of overcrowding or was there some other reason that happened? Are there other instances in other prisons where there are facilities that should be provided to prisoners that are not as a result of the overall failures in the system?

I agree with the Chairman. It is not a case of one or the other. I want to see more prison spaces so that prisoners can be accommodated appropriately in prisons. We need to recognise that our population has increased very significantly and our prison capacity has not increased in any way similar to the increase in our population. Similarly, however, I want to see more community sanctions brought in. I want to see greater use of restorative justice. I want to see the Probation Service funded, as I am funding it, to a greater extent. As I said earlier, a lot of good work is being done by the Probation Service and it probably does not get the recognition it deserves.

In terms of the Prison Service, there is ongoing recruitment within the Prison Service. In 2025, there has been 388 people recruited to the Irish Prison Service. That is made up of: 275 recruit prison officers, 24 prison clerical officers, 22 prison healthcare support, 24 prison nurses, 20 psychologists, one principal officer, and then the others are individuals within an administrative basis within the Civil Service.

The Chairman asked me if overcrowding has an impact. Unfortunately, of course it does. I cannot give him an answer in respect of the bakery in Mountjoy. I will come back to the Chairman on that because I had not been told that it was closed. If it has been closed, I do not know the reason for its closure, but I will come back to the Chairman. It is unquestionably the case that if a prison such as Mountjoy, and Mountjoy is particularly problematic in terms of overcrowding, is very overcrowded, it is going to, unfortunately, have an impact on the services made available to prisoners. I just cannot get away from that. I cannot fool the Chairman saying otherwise.

What is the timeframe for not having overcrowded prisons?

The timeframe, and I got approval from Government a number of months ago for a considerable investment in providing 1,400 new prison spaces, is that we are going to see prison spaces coming on board this year, next year and particularly in 2027. I cannot come to the Chairman and say the prison overcrowding problem is going to be resolved this year. I am hopeful that, come the middle of next year, we will have a sense of direction that it is getting better with more prison spaces.

Obviously one of the things that we cannot control, and it was mentioned by a Deputy here earlier, that we all want to see more gardaí, judges and more efficiencies. The truth of the matter is that the more gardaí and the more judges we have, necessarily we are going to have more offences and more detections. There is going to be more business for the courts, and when you have more business for the courts in the criminal sphere, there is going to be more convictions.

The corollary of what the Minister has said is that there is huge levels of undetected crime happening across society.

I am not saying that. It is inevitably the case that there is crime out there that is not detected - that will not come as a surprise to anyone - but what I have said is unquestionably the case when you get more courts sitting. We now have 11 or 12 central criminal courts sitting at any one time. We used to have one or two murder cases going on in Ireland. We could have ten or 11 of them ongoing at any one time. When they come to an end, if they are all found guilty, there will be 11 life sentences imposed. There are consequences to this that were not taken into account previously. The prison population capacity should have increased along with our population in general and it is a deficiency that I am committed to improving in the future.

When we are dealing with the Estimates and the allocations to the Prison Service, the other aspect of our job is in respect of accountability. Has the Minister got to the bottom of the "Prime Time" revelations in respect of the cash-based shift swapping that was alleged in that programme in respect of prison officers? It does raise serious concerns in terms of both security and safety. We had "Prime Time" outlining those allegations in quite an amount of detail and the Irish Prison Service essentially saying "nothing to see here". Has the Minister initiated any investigation?

I did get a report on it after the programme was published. I am sorry that I do not have it just at the forefront of my mind at present. I did get a report from my officials after the "Prime Time" programme. I do not want to speculate in terms of what it said. Certainly, it has not resulted in me saying we need to have an independent investigation into this, so I must have been relatively calmed.

Can the report be shared?

It was addressed to me. If it indicates to me that there was an explanation within it, it will not be the case then that I will be looking for an investigation in respect of it, but I will have a look to see what the report says and I will revert to the Chairman.

I respect that you are the Minister and you need to be satisfied on these matters, but I would also contend that the public has a right to be satisfied and to have any concerns alleviated. That moves me on to my next point. Again, we are here and the Minister is allocating bodies with public funds, seeking the approval of the Government and the Houses in that respect. Does the Minister accept that there is an issue in terms of full accountability? Speaking about the Courts Service, I was conscious that if Deputy Cahill were to submit his question by way of a parliamentary question, he would be told that the Minister has no responsibility. For many issues in respect of courts, we are told the Minister has no responsibility in terms of answering Members of the House. It is likewise with the Garda.

About what exactly?

It is across a number of different areas.

Like the spiking question?

No, in terms of the courts, when the Deputy mentioned the courts. To give an example, I submitted a number of questions in respect of Garda CCTV schemes in my own town of Carrickmacross and a number of other towns. When I ask the Minister, through parliamentary questions, for an update, the Minister says it is nothing to do with him, yet the Minister announces it when it actually happens. Again, I would argue that the Minister cannot have it both ways in the sense that, yes, he is the Minister, he is allocating the funding, and he gets to announce good news to local communities, which I imagine he would argue is one of the few pleasant parts of his job. Likewise, that should mean that communities through their elected representatives are entitled to ask the Minister questions in respect of these things to ensure that the money that is being allocated by these Houses is actually spent as intended within a timescale that is appropriate and that there is accountability at every level. Does the Minister accept that?

I have no difficulty giving information about CCTV here. I have no difficulty about giving Deputy Cahill information in respect of courts. If the Chairman wants, I can give him information about community CCTV programmes. I do not want to eat up the time of the Chairman, but if he wants me to, I will.

Does the Minister accept the point I am making that parliamentary questions are the constitutional way in which Ministers respond to Members of the Dáil?

Yes, but I suppose there are statutory bodies such as the Courts Service or such as, if I were the Minister for Health, the HSE, where responsibility-----

If I ask the Minister for Health a question in respect of the HSE, I will be given the policy response and a direction to the HSE to respond to me. If I ask the Minister present a question in respect of the Courts Service, I will get a letter from the Ceann Comhairle saying that it has nothing to do with him. Does the Minister accept there is anomaly there in terms of-----

I would need to look at it. I try to give as much information as I can. If the Chairman has an issue, he can write to me and raise an issue. If the Chairman wants, I will give him information about the community CCTV programmes, but I do not want to be seen to be eating up his time.

I wrote to the Minister a couple of weeks ago in respect of an IPAS contract in the M Hotel in Magheracloone asking what his Department's intention is in respect of that contract. Can the Minister answer that question?

I am not going to talk about individual contracts. I have no difficulty in talking about how I operate community CCTV programmes but I am not going to talk about individual contracts for IPAS centres.

I am conscious that my time is up. Does any other Member wish to come in? I will come back in afterwards.

Is there is an agreement to create 1,400 more prison spaces?

Yes. I got approval from Government for, I think, 1,475 new prison spaces over three-----

Even at that, 1,400 works out at about 21%. Even with the next plan for prisons, that still does not even bring us below 100% capacity.

I know, but in that case, if I were to adopt that policy, I might as well say, "Sure what's the point? We're never going to get-----

The big plan is to have another 1,400 places but that would leave us at 102% capacity. These are people's lives. I am talking about numbers here, but, inevitably, this means people sleeping on the floor, prisoners without access to rehabilitation, no bakery and no access to detoxification, which is huge. We are just creating the conditions for people going into prison and on to a conveyor belt and coming out more hardened and more ready to commit crime. It is not about what the point is but about what the strategy really is.

There are two reasons behind the imposition of a prison sentence. One is, as the Deputy talks about, rehabilitation and trying to divert a person from a pathway of criminality onto one of being a positive contributor to society. The other is punishment. Deputy Gannon spoke earlier about domestic and gender-based violence. We are trying to encourage more women to come forward to make complaints to An Garda Síochána in respect of violence perpetrated on them, whether that is sexual violence or other forms of violence. At the end of that process, we are putting huge amounts of money into trying to encourage people to come forward, we have the Garda to investigate and we have the courts system. At the end of that process of justice, people would expect punishment would be meted out to an individual.

Again, I am not against prison as a societal form of retribution. I get it. This is a bit more of an academic point. It has not been not clarified in any statute in Ireland whether prison is for rehabilitation or punishment. I really think we could-----

It is both.

It is not clarified in statute, which leaves us in an in-between space where we can close down training units, and it is a case of "So what?" We could actually do with defining it. My problem is that when people come out of prison, they are more ready to commit a harder form of crime than, in some instances, when they went in. It just leaves the streets and communities we represent more unsafe. That is why we need to have a better strategy. Can I talk a little about high-visibility policing?

Yes.

I walk down O'Connell Street now and I see more gardaí than I saw a year ago, without a shadow of a doubt.

Good.

I also walk up towards Drumcondra and the surrounding communities, where I am getting more frustration expressed and more correspondence from people. The Minister is right. He said something really telling, and I agree with him. We are fairly unique in Ireland in that people want to see more gardaí. That is a really good thing. I would probably not have had the same opinion 20 years ago, but I definitely do now. One of the problems with high-visibility policing, however, is that it takes away what works, which is community gardaí on the beat on the street. When I first started out in politics we used to have an initiative in the north inner city called the small area policing initiative. Gardaí were tasked with knocking on people's doors and introducing themselves. It actually worked for a long time.

I am getting a flood of correspondence now. To take Drumcondra as an example, I got an email from the residents association up there saying there had been a couple of burglaries and the Garda response time was very poor. This was not because the force wanted it to be poor but because it does not have the capacity to respond. Community-based policing seems to be gone. Now, we are talking about high-visibility and public order policing. The Minister should not get me wrong - I think public order policing is particularly necessary given what we saw in Citywest a few weeks ago. That is a particular style of policing, however. It involves gardaí in a van waiting to be called in. Public order policing is not policing on the beat.

I know.

I know the Minister knows that, but I do not think it is particularly well known that this approach involves gardaí in a van who are ready to react when things go wrong. We absolutely need that, but somewhere lost in the middle of that approach is community policing. I have the canals in my constituency. Dublin City Council did huge work on the canal down by the North Strand. People just will not walk down there because of the level of drug-associated violence happening there. We have parks in the city centre where council officials have stopped going in because of the high level of drug-related crime. We need to have a balance. We absolutely need public visibility policing in our commercial city centres, but can we ensure this does not take away from policing in our residential communities too?

First, community policing is not gone. It is still an essential part of the policing carried out by An Garda Síochána. There is no incompatibility between community policing and high-visibility policing. What is happening in respect of high-visibility policing is that the Commissioner, who consulted me, has decided that big chunks of the new recruits coming out of Templemore were given to Dublin. Last week, they were given to Cork. We will see it down in Cork this week. Decisions are being made after each intake to give large chunks of the gardaí coming out to a certain area so they can be more visible on the streets. That is not interfering with the community gardaí already in those districts and doing their essential work.

We are probably never going to have enough gardaí but the solution is to try to recruit more gardaí. The numbers are going up. We have about 14,500 gardaí at present. We took in 794 recruits this year. Yesterday, 223 recruits started in Templemore. If I can get 220 or 230 recruits starting in each intake, then we will be in a very strong position and the Deputy will be able to see more gardaí on the streets of Drumcondra.

There is also the matter of voluntary retirement and the number of gardaí eligible for it. I read the Minister's website. Was it 18 months ago he wrote about the number of voluntary retirements potentially going to happen in the Garda? I think he had it down as about 6,000. I raised the number of gardaí eligible for voluntary retirements in the next three years with the Commissioner last week. This does not mean they are going to retire, but eventually, within a couple of years of that, they absolutely will. Next year, 836 gardaí will be eligible for voluntary retirement. The year after that, 1,056 gardaí will be eligible for voluntary retirement and the year after that again, another 1,417 gardaí will become eligible for voluntary retirement. In total, we are getting up to nearly 3,000 gardaí being eligible for voluntary retirement within the next three years.

Yes, but I think this year, up to 30 September, we have seen around 185 voluntary retirements, compulsory retirements and cost-neutral early retirements. Those are the figures. Just because-----

This times out, though.

The eligibility for the number of gardaí to retire this year is 855, and it looks like probably only 200 will retire.

That, in and of itself, has a time associated with it. Inevitably, voluntary retirements become compulsory retirements.

Of course, yes.

We have had an average of 160 retirements in recent times, which is actually quite good.

Yes, and there have been very few resignations.

Yes, but the Minister himself knows that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a big Garda recruitment drive that took loads of gardaí into the force, many of whom will have to retire within the next five to six years, whether it is voluntary retirement or otherwise. I am not sure the numbers are keeping pace with what is coming down the line in the next five to six years.

We can identify - I am not criticising the Deputy - potential problems that exist, and of course there are always challenges.

It is a big one.

The solution is recruitment, and the numbers are pretty good. Having 223 recruits starting in Templemore yesterday is a great number. It has been the highest in over ten years, so a good allocation is starting there. If we can get to 800, 900 and 1,000 gardaí coming out every year, we will be in a very strong position.

I do not always want to be finding problems.

I know.

This is what we do; it is the game we are in. I would love to be working more collaboratively to be actually talking about solutions to those issues too. We are all talking to gardaí about what could be done better. This could probably be a forum in which we could have collective discussions and come up with ideas. I would like to see more of that.

We are going to set up the local community safety partnerships. I was at one yesterday down in Wexford, where I met the people involved. I also met the people in the partnership in Galway. One will also be set up for Dublin Central.

Yes.

These are going to be absolutely essential. It will not just be like the old joint policing committees, JPCs, where there were the gardaí and councillors. The new partnerships will have people from the HSE, Tusla, etc. There are problems in our society that go beyond the gardaí.

There is a big problem there, though. I believe there should be a forum for democratic engagement like this. People should be able to look in. Those new initiatives are happening behind closed doors, whereas with the old JPCs, people got to see their representatives talking to senior gardaí and the HSE. There is a lot of merit in what we are talking about, but we are taking away something very significant, that being a forum for discussion.

The community safety partnerships can have public meetings.

Maybe they should. I thank the Minister.

Also, there will be no Oireachtas Members on the community safety partnerships either.

That is another big issue.

Be careful what you wish for, a Chathaoirligh.

In respect of IPAS, in his opening statement, the Minister highlighted €13.2 million in savings as result of contract and rate renegotiations, along with the termination of 22 contracts over the past few months. Does he accept that we were paying too much?

I have been here with the committee before and we spoke about IPAS. The surge in numbers that took place in 2022, 2023 and 2024 meant we were in a very weak negotiating position. I have no doubt that we entered into contracts, because the State was desperate for accommodation at the time, at rates that would not have been agreed had we been in a position where other options were available.

Going back to the point on accountability, there is no way for anybody outside of the Minister's Department to know whether we are paying too much, whether we are getting a bad deal or whether there is obscene profiteering going on because the information is not being shared. The Minister said in our previous interaction that he was not going to discuss individual contracts. To give an outline of that particular case, that is the M Hotel in Magheracloone. That was one of those centres - I think it was about a decade ago now - where the local community just woke up to find their local hotel had been taken over for what was called an "emergency situation". The local community actually responded very well in terms of ensuring the residents of what was called an "emergency measure" actually had supplies. In some cases, the local community had to go and buy toiletries and sanitary products because the providers had not even provided them.

As it was considered to be a temporary emergency situation, the community responded appropriately with the expectation that this would be for a period of time. A number of years rolled by and the hotel entered into a formal contract with the Department, the details of which are completely unknown to the local community. The hotel then sought planning permission for an extension. On that application, it actually stated categorically that the purpose of the extension was to allow the hotel to withdraw from the contract and return to commercial hotel activity.

It seems apparent now that that was not the intention whatsoever, so there has been a complete breakdown in trust. People come to me and other elected representatives and ask what is going on. I am the Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas justice committee. I get to talk to the Minister directly, I can submit questions and I can submit letters, but there is no way for me to answer questions about how many residents are there, how much money is being made by the company involved and what the timeframe is for that hotel to be given back to a community that has no other amenity in terms of a similar public commercial centre. Does the Minister not see the problem with all of that?

I publish information in respect of payments to accommodation providers every quarter.

Yes.

If it is over €10,000 - I think it is that small amount - that will be published. If there is a company called "O'Callaghan Enterprises Limited" and I am using it for accommodation services for international protection, the Cathaoirleach will see exactly that-----

I will not see where its particular sites are.

The Cathaoirleach will see how much money is being received in respect of it, so he will know the money that is being paid to a particular company for the provision of international protection. I would have thought that was fairly transparent accountability in terms of the money that was available.

In terms of hotels, I have said here before that I want to get out of the business of using hotels. I do not want to hire hotels for the purpose of providing international accommodation. I have not taken over any since I have been in the job. My intention is to get out of the hotel business. We should not be involved in it. We should be looking for more permanent accommodation, as I have said previously. We are now trying to increase the number of State-owned beds. We are up to approximately 4,000 State-owned beds. I want to get it up to 14,000.

The Cathaoirleach will know that the real driver of all this is the number of people who come in seeking international protection. I have said before that it is my policy objective to try to reduce that number because it was having a very significant impact. I know from the statistics that the overwhelming majority of applications are rejected. That is my policy direction, but if large numbers come in, we are required under the material conditions directive of European law - before the migration pact or any issue like that - to provide accommodation to people when they come in.

The job of doing that is made much more difficult if there is a breakdown in trust with local communities.

I agree with the Cathaoirleach.

There are a number of different points. There is not anywhere near the required level of transparency. To use the fictional O'Callaghan Enterprises Limited that is providing an IPAS centre, it is virtually impossible in some cases to fully get to the bottom of the beneficial owners of O'Callaghan Enterprises Limited or otherwise. There is not the type of specific detail in terms of what is actually being provided for the moneys that are being paid. The very fact that savings have been made because of renegotiation of contracts shows that there was a problem. In my view, we have only scratched the surface of some of the scandals that are going on in terms of huge sums of money being paid to people who are providing a poor service.

The Minister mentioned the 22 cancellations. I know that, if I ask a specific question in respect of a specific property, he will not answer. In terms of fire regulations, if there is a termination of a contract over fire regulations, does that result in the immediate closure of the centre? That is what I would expect for any residential property. If there was a breach of fire regulations, safety best practice would ensure that the building was immediately vacated. What is the current position?

When an inspection identifies any issues, including those related to fire safety, a formal process is immediately triggered to ensure resolution. A written report is provided to the contractor within 14 days, detailing all deficiencies found. The contractor is contractually bound to respond within 14 days with a detailed report on how they will remedy the problems, including definitive timeframes, or provide photographic proof of fixes already completed. There are clear mechanisms in place.

In terms of what the Cathaoirleach talked about as regards entering into contracts, I will only enter into contracts with Irish or EU companies, as they generally are. It is generally the case that trying to find out who the beneficial owners are is not something the State gets involved in when it is entering into contracts. The beneficial owners could be individuals here or they could be individuals residing elsewhere. The real issue is the eye-watering amount of money we are spending. It is my job to reduce it. The real driver of it, no matter even if you had Carthy Enterprises, the most ethical company in the world, providing all the IPAS accommodation, is the fact that we will still be spending huge amounts of money because of the numbers that came in during the surge. The real driver of the cost to the State is the number of people coming in and claiming international protection.

That is not disputed, certainly not by me. In terms of the issues that need to be dealt with, there is still a lot of work to be done on processing times, appeal times and enforcement of the decisions but there is an outstanding issue whereby a lot of these contracts are still in place. As I mentioned, amenities are still removed. The Minister mentioned he was not entering into contracts, or was trying to avoid entering into contracts, with hotels.

Yes.

Is the Minister actively trying to disengage from contracts? If he does not want to be specific about the one I mentioned, that is okay but is he trying to disengage from contracts such as the one I mentioned?

People are suing me because I am not giving them international protection applicants to accommodate.

I have not seen that.

That is something this committee should be concerned about.

Yes.

In terms of contracts, I am not going to do something that will enable the other party to the contract to sue me. If there is a contract for three years, I will not turn around after one and a half years and terminate that contract to give them a damages claim for a significant amount of money. I have to be sensible and lawful in terms of what I can do, but if hotels are coming to an end after the contract terminates, my preference is to get out of it.

Okay. Will the Minister divulge when contracts will end?

It depends when they were entered into. If a contract is entered into-----

The Minister just said, and rightly so, that this committee should be concerned about the potential of the Department being taken to court in respect of contracts. We should, but we should also be privy to the details of why those scenarios emerged in the first place.

Today is 18 November. Let us say that, two years ago on 18 November 2023, a contract was entered into. There could be another contract that was entered into on 19 November, 5 January or any date. The contract will be for a period of two or three years. That is generally what it is. There are approximately 300 contracts in place. They will terminate at different times throughout the year. I want to ensure I will not allow the State to be in a position where we can be sued for breach of contract.

The Minister mentioned the numbers that were coming in. Yesterday, he raised potential concerns about the impact of decisions that the British Government was making and what that could mean. He indicated that he may need to amend some domestic Irish legislation. Is he in a position to tell the committee what changes he will make?

I am not. I was asked a question yesterday when I was up in Farmleigh House. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was there with the undersecretary.

There were questions about the announcement that was to take place in the House of Commons. Anything that happens in the UK in respect of asylum will have an impact in Ireland. This is because of the common travel area and the fact we have a completely open land border with the United Kingdom. This is the reason we need to be attuned to the fact that if a major decision is made in the United Kingdom, it can have an impact here. It happened previously in respect of the loosening of visa rules in the UK for people from a certain country. I will not identify the country but it resulted in the number of applications for international protection in Ireland from there rising significantly. I am hopeful we will not see any immediate change arising from the announcement yesterday but it is very important that I collaborate with my UK colleagues, and if I do detect there is a significant change in the flow of the number of people coming to Ireland claiming asylum as a result of a policy change in the UK, that I have a response to it.

Has the Minister engaged with his British counterpart-----

I have.

-----on advancing a bilateral agreement that would allow for the return of international protection applicants in either direction, and will the Minister give a timeframe as to when such a meeting took place?

I met and spoke to the previous occupant of the Home Office, Yvette Cooper. I spoke to the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, when she was Secretary of State for Justice. I have been in contact with her, and officials have been in contact with her, since she was appointed as Home Secretary. One of the things that is relevant and public is that we have designated, or rather I have designated, the United Kingdom as a safe third country. There are issues that arise in respect of this. It is extremely important that we engage with each other, but in terms of big agreements between Ireland and the UK there are mechanisms in place to ensure we are sensitive to each other's requirements. We do not want to find ourselves in a situation where we are antagonistic with the United Kingdom.

I suggest we have a bilateral agreement. That is the opposite of being antagonistic.

I will engage with my Home Secretary colleague in respect of the matter.

As no other members want to come in, I will quickly raise several issues. I have raised the criminal injuries compensation scheme with the Minister a number of times. On 2 October, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that national criminal injury compensation schemes cannot exclude compensation for pain and suffering. Are there plans to change the scheme's entitlements to include pain and suffering? Will this have any retrospective application? When will the long-awaited report of the Law Reform Commission regarding the tribunal be in the Minister's hands and, more importantly, when will we have legislation to put the compensation tribunal on a statutory footing?

I am aware of the Blanco decision. It is a significant decision. As the Cathaoirleach knows, up to now under our rules people do not get compensation for pain and suffering. The Blanco decision states that schemes in member states should include damages for pain and suffering. This is an issue not only for Ireland but throughout the EU in terms of the consequences of the decision. The Cathaoirleach asked whether any change would have retrospective effect and the answer is "No". In terms of the Law Reform Commission's report, I am not responsible and I do not know when the Law Reform Commission will report.

Can the Minister not knock on its door and ask when it is coming?

I have a lot of doors to be knocking on. If I were to start knocking on the door of every statutory agency that was due to send me a report, I would be pretty busy.

This is having real-life consequences in terms of the next step in all of this.

The Law Reform Commission report is an important report. It will make recommendations in respect of what should be done. I appreciate and understand why it would want to await the decision from the CJEU on Blanco before it finalised its report. There is also engagement at official level with the Law Reform Commission. In terms of the legislation, it is a big area that will need to be carefully considered and legislation will have to be put in place. It should be on a statutory basis but it should be called the victims' tribunal rather than the criminal injuries compensation tribunal. I cannot give the Cathaoirleach a timeframe for it at present.

The Minister had a discussion with Deputy Gannon earlier in respect of domestic violence services. There has been some progress on refuges but will the Minister accept it is still taking far too long to provide what was previously committed to, which is having at least one refuge in every county? I welcome the fact there seems to have been some progress on a centre in Monaghan. Will the Minister give a timeframe for the ultimate completion of this? Has he given up the notion that there would also be a centre in Cavan?

To answer the Cathaoirleach's question, no, I have not given up on there being a centre in Cavan. We have identified a location in Monaghan. It is not the case that I want to be able to say I have one in every county. We have to look at the geography of the country. There are parts of Cavan that are considerably away from Monaghan town, and that is what makes me believe we should be trying to get a place in Cavan. I had a very good meeting with Cavan County Council recently in respect of this. I am satisfied with the progress that is being made in identifying refuges and safe houses. A lot of work is being done. I was out in Coolock and Ringsend. We are going to have about 181 by the end of 2025. There are further 32-----

Will the Minister give me a timeframe for the Monaghan refuge?

I cannot give a timeframe for it. We have identified a location.

On Vote 22 and the Supplementary Estimate for the Courts Service, the Minister said it is mainly due to increased costs of interpretation, translation, jury meals and transport. Many people were incredibly shocked to learn of a Court of Appeal decision in respect of interpretation at a criminal trial whereby it set aside convictions. What shocked people was the implication that there is no regulation of the use of language interpreters in the courts. Is this the case and are there plans to address it?

When it comes to hiring interpreters, there is now a greater requirement than there was before. The Courts Service is the entity that is responsible for recruiting interpreters. I have not seen as of yet, though I will watch it, the programme that referred to this. I have to say it strikes me that it is not a usual phenomenon to have a problem with interpreting services. As Ireland becomes more diverse and as more people come from various parts of the world, we are necessarily going to have to ensure we have interpreting services in the courts if people end up before the courts.

I think what I find-----

May I say as well, and this may answer the Cathaoirleach's specific question, in terms of how many cases have been appealed due to interpretation issues, I am informed the Courts Service has no other record of issues with the quality of interpretation that would impinge on the conduct of a fair trial in the Circuit Court. The interpreter in the appealed case has not been used since 2023. The Courts Service is not aware of any further appeal made as a result of interpretation by this interpreter.

The problem is a potential systemic issue. I take it from the Minister's response that there are no concerns there may be other appeals coming on foot of this decision, which is good to hear. I was a member of the European Parliament, where a lot depends on interpretation and translation. There are very strict criteria and standardised accreditation systems in place. I would have thought we would have that in a courts system, regardless of what perspective we are coming from, be it the legal service itself, victims or defendants, with a standardised system and manner in which to accredit people. Does the Minister think it is something he will look at in the time ahead?

I am very satisfied the people who are accused of serious criminal offences have good representation. They have good legal representation because of the criminal legal aid scheme that operates here. We are not like other countries, where people could be concerned about the quality of the lawyer representing an individual. Any lawyer worth their salt is going to ensure the interpretation being provided is satisfactory, because obviously the lawyer will have to consult with the client also.

I thank the Minister as always for his frank exchange. No other members have indicated, so that concludes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimates for Votes 20, 21, 22 and 24. In accordance with Standing Order 110, a message to that effect will be sent to the Clerk of the Dáil. Once again, I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.

We will now adjourn until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 December when the committee will consider Committee Stage of the Proceeds of Crime and Related Matters Bill 2025.