No apologies have been received. I remind members to turn off their mobile phones or to switch them to flight mode. The meeting has been convened to consider two separate matters, the first of which is the 2026 Revised Estimates for Vote 20 - Garda Síochána, Vote 21 - Prisons, Vote 22 - Courts Service, Vote 24 - Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, Vote 41 - An tÚdarás Póilíneachta agus Sábháilteachta Pobail, Vote 43 - Data Protection Commission and Vote 45 - Fiosrú. Later in the meeting we will deal with the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025. The committee will consider the Estimates first and then we will suspend briefly before we commence Committee Stage of the Bill.

I thank the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and his officials for attending and assisting us in our consideration of the Estimates. I also thank the Minister and the Department for the provision of information relating to the Estimates. As I said, we are dealing with Votes 20 to 24, inclusive, 41, 43 and 45. I suggest we ask the Minister to give a brief overview of all the Votes and then we will invite members in the order in which they have indicated to me to put any questions they may see fit.

I 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 the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I again thank the Minister for being here and I invite him to begin.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an gCathaoirleach as cuireadh a thabhairt dom bheith anseo inniu. I thank the Cathaoirleach for inviting me here seeking the approval of the committee for the Revised Estimates for the justice Vote group. As members will know, the total investment for the justice Votes is €6.34 billion in 2026. I believe this will deliver essential public services that keep people safe, safeguard human rights and support a fair and inclusive Ireland. Along with my colleagues the Ministers of State, Deputies Collins and Brophy, we are very proud of the work we do on behalf of the people of Ireland and, indeed, the officials within the Department of justice. We want to oversee and deliver a system of justice that is modern, efficient and works for the public, one that reflects the fundamental expectation of all people to feel safe and secure in their homes and communities.

The committee's approval for the Revised Estimates is in respect of seven Votes in the justice Vote group I will not list them as members will be aware of them. The Estimates for 2026 provide for gross expenditure of €6.34 billion across the seven Votes. As members will appreciate, a core focus of my Department and of the 2026 funding allocation is protecting our security and building stronger, safer communities. That means supporting a vibrant and strong policing service that is highly visible in our communities. I am committed to ensuring that gardaí are visible within our committees and that An Garda Síochána has the resources, technology and systems to ensure that people are kept safe and that crime is prevented. The funding for which I am seeking the committee's approval will support an effective justice system, ensure people in Ireland can be supported through the courts as is their right, deliver a rules-based immigration system that recognises the value of migrants to our country, and ensure the effective implementation of the International Protection Bill. It will also support extending essential assistance to victims of domestic violence and deliver on the nationwide ambition for local community safety partnerships, which have been rolled out around the country.

With €390 million in capital expenditure and €22.4 million having been carried over to 2026, the total capital allocation available this year is €412.4 million. This will allow us to improve and extend essential infrastructure across the system. The 2026 capital allocation represents year 1 of an five-year plan. In July of last year, I was pleased to secure an overall capital allocation for the justice sector of €2.18 billion from 2026 to 2030, following the review of the national development plan, NDP. This is a hugely significant level of investment. It will enable the delivery of a large range of priority capital projects right across the justice sector, as outlined in the sectoral investment plan, which I published last December.

Turning to the Votes, I am pleased to recommend a gross allocation for Vote 20 - Garda Síochána of €2.741 billion, which includes a substantial capital allocation of €173.8 million. This funding will allow for increased recruitment, ensuring we have more gardaí visible on our streets and protecting people. It will also provide the equipment, technology, facilities and fleet that Garda members require to carry out their vital role.

Approximately 81% of Garda current expenditure relates to pay and pensions for gardaí, past and present. I am pleased the funding for 2026 provides for the further recruitment of up to 1,000 new Garda recruits and 200 additional Garda staff. Some 215 new Garda recruits have already started training in Templemore this year, with three more intakes still to come. I had the pleasure of being present to see another 167 new gardaí attest from Templemore last month.

I am pleased that it has been possible to provide an overtime budget of €172 million. This includes ongoing support for high-visibility policing to prevent and tackle crime and combat antisocial behaviour, as well as investigation of serious and organised crime.

The forthcoming EU Presidency will impose significant additional risk and responsibility on An Garda Síochána and €125 million of extra funding is being provided to the Garda to deliver on this critical role.

A capital allocation of €173.8 million in 2026 covers a number of areas. A sum of €81.5 million is being provided for Garda ICT. This capital investment in technology will support ongoing reform and enhancement of Garda technology systems. In particular, it will provide gardaí with body-worn cameras. This important initiative, which was trialled throughout 2025, will progress further in 2026, together with developing the necessary recording, evidence management and storage infrastructure. Funding will also ensure the upgrading of platforms and infrastructure and further enhancements to core policing systems, including additional capabilities for Garda mobility devices and to improve call handling and deployment of Garda resources.

A sum of €64.6 million is being provided for a building and refurbishment programme. This will fund continued investment in modernising the force. We are delivering a range of new stations and headquarters, which will provide state-of-the-art facilities for gardaí and staff. This funding will, for instance, see the construction and fit-out of Bailieborough district headquarters, which I know will be of interest to the Chairman, and will be completed this year. The construction of Newcastle West district headquarters and Portlaoise Garda divisional headquarters will also be largely completed this year, with fit-out to be finalised in 2027. New stations in Macroom and Clonmel are both under construction, with a 27-month construction timeframe, to be completed in early 2028. Completion of Drogheda PEMS store will be achieved in early 2026, and a new PEMS project in Tallaght will also be completed in 2026. These will deliver modern, secure facilities for storing seized property and evidence and thereby ensure chain of custody and improve efficiency for front-line gardaí.

A sum of €15 million is being invested in modernisation, expansion and electrification of the Garda fleet in 2026. This includes purchase of vehicles, including roads policing vehicles, marked and unmarked cars, public order vehicles, etc.

A sum of €12.7 million is being provided towards new Garda aircraft this year, specifically one fixed-wing aircraft and one helicopter. The fixed-wing aircraft is a new Viking 400 FW and was delivered to the air support unit in December 2025. The helicopter is due for delivery this month and both of these will be fully operational in 2026. Some €39.4 million has been spent to date to secure these essential assets. I thank gardaí and Garda staff for their exemplary service to our communities. It is vital their work is supported by me and the Government.

Vote 21 is the Prisons Vote. The gross Estimate in 2026 is €581 million, which includes a capital allocation of €68 million for the year. I am acutely aware of the pressures overcrowding is placing on the Irish Prison Service. I acknowledge the significant work being done by all of the staff in the Prison Service. The professionalism and compassion they show in carrying out their duties are commendable.

The pay allocation for the Prison Service has been increased to €383 million to enable it to recruit 100 additional prison officers and 50 additional staff on a phased basis and to fund an additional 210,000 additional hours, an increase of almost 20%. We are also increasing the non-pay allocations in 2026 to strengthen rehabilitation, improve medical care, invest in staff training and well-being and meet the growing cost of essential services, such as catering, clothing, laundry and utilities.

I have allocated €67.9 million in capital funding for prisons this year. Over €60 million is going towards a building and refurbishment programme to deliver one of the most significant capital programmes in the justice sector. This reflects the Government’s commitment to increase prison capacity, with an overall target of delivering over 1,500 spaces by 2031. This includes multiple large-scale projects in Cork, Midlands and Wheatfield prisons. Additional capacity will also be added in Castlerea, Mountjoy, Cloverhill, Portlaoise and Limerick prisons and the Dóchas. The funding will also allow for the planning and commencement of construction of a new prison at Thornton in north County Dublin.

The programme also includes vital infrastructural upgrades across the estate, supports for our climate action commitments and new security measures, such as the installation of netting in prison yards to prevent the delivery of drugs by drone. Alongside this, we have committed €4 million in capital funding to ICT improvements and €2.5 million to fleet upgrades to ensure we have the capacity to safely and efficiently manage prisoner transport for court appearances and medical appointments.

Vote 22 is the Courts Service Vote. A total of almost €217 million is being provided for the Courts Service in 2026. The allocation allows for the continued progress of the courts modernisation programme, which will simplify court proceeding processes and make services more accessible. This ten-year programme will deliver a new operating model for the Courts Service designed around the needs of the user, with clear, standardised services and accessible data to inform decisions. Funding of €4.2 million has also been provided for additional staff to support the work of new and existing judges, reduce existing backlogs and help establish the new family courts. I am particularly pleased to note the tender documents for the construction of the new family law courts at Hammond Lane in Dublin have recently been published, with construction of this public-private partnership project to start next year.

Vote 24, the justice Vote, is my Department’s Vote. It has a gross Estimate provision of €2.7 billion and covers three very significant areas, namely, criminal justice, civil justice and migration. The Estimates for 2026 take account of the transfer of functions committed to under the programme for Government and brought into effect in 2025. This transferred responsibility to my Department for integration policy and international protection and Ukraine accommodation services, with effect from 1 May 2025. This was the largest transfer of functions across government, both in terms of the number of staff who transferred, as well the considerable budget of over €2 billion.

The other significant area that transferred to my Department is responsibility for cybersecurity policy. The National Cyber Security Centre came over to my Department, with effect from 1 June 2025. Bringing responsibility for cybersecurity under the remit of my Department ensures proper alignment of national security infrastructure. This will be further consolidated by the development of the new statutory national security authority also coming under the remit of my Department. The budget for the National Cyber Security Centre in 2026 increases by almost €11 million to €17.5 million to meet the significant expansion in scope and role of the centre as a consequence of the NIS2 directive, as well as new national security powers under the upcoming national cyber security Bill.

Funding to support Cuan and services working to tackle domestic, sexual and gender-based violence and the implementation of the zero tolerance strategy has been increased to almost €80 million. This reflects a commitment to ensuring that victims of such violence receive the supports they need. This represents an increase of €13 million in 2026. A sum of €8 million is being provided to the National Office for Community Safety, which supports the 36 local community safety partnerships, LCSPs, across the country, as well as funding to increase the size of the community safety fund to €4.75 million. This reinvests money seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau into the communities which need it most.

Youth justice funding for youth justice projects and bail supervision of €40 million this year is providing the resources to deliver the key objectives in the Youth Justice Strategy 2021-2027. This will enable the expansion of the range of specialist supports made available through local youth diversion services, such as early intervention and family support programmes.

Funding of over €70 million to Probation Service programmes will provide for additional staffing and the development of new programmes, thereby increasing capacity to encourage rehabilitation and reintegration. Funding for the new Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland has almost doubled to €13.3 million.

An additional €9 million is included in the Estimates for the Legal Aid Board, bringing its allocation to over €73 million. This funding is primarily to recruit new staff, increase investment in ICT and provide for additional costs directly related to the continuing high level of immigration applications. The additional funding for immigration and international protection will improve our systems, speeding up processing, strengthening returns and ensuring Ireland is fully ready to implement the new legislation going through the Oireachtas by 12 June 2026. This budget ensures we have a firm, fair and effective immigration system that represents better value for the public's money. Some key provisions include resources to fully implement the International Protection Bill by June 2026, with additional staff being provided for immigration and international protection services. The budget also meets the full-year costs of the very significant staffing increases delivered in 2025.

This year, we aim to reduce the cost of accommodation for international protection applicants and those fleeing the war in Ukraine by €120 million. This reflects the reduced number of applications in 2025, faster processing of those applications and action taken to renegotiate accommodation contracts. A capital budget of €40 million will allow for further investment in State-owned accommodation options.

I will deal with the final three Votes very briefly. Vote 43 is the Data Protection Commission. A gross Estimate of €33 million has been made available to the Data Protection Commission. This allocation includes an increase of €3.8 million compared with the previous year. The commission has been allocated a significant number of additional responsibilities on foot of new EU legislation, including the Digital Services Act and the AI Act. The increased budget allocation reflects the importance of the commission's role and allows for the continued recruitment of additional staff this year to ensure compliance with its regulatory obligations.

Additional funding is also being provided to the Policing and Community Safety Authority and Fiosrú, which are two other Votes, to continue their valuable work in 2026. A gross Estimate of €6.672 million has been made available to the Policing and Community Safety Authority, a 6% increase compared with 2025.

A gross Estimate of €24.66 million for Fiosrú includes €2 million capital, an increase of €3.5 million compared with the previous year.

I welcome any questions the Chair or his colleagues may have.

I thank the Minister. As members know, there is no time limit in respect of Estimates but because we are dealing with all Votes in one sitting, I suggest members keep their contributions to less than ten minutes initially. I will then allow another round to ensure everyone gets an opportunity.

On Vote 24, pillar C, we know that proceedings in the Commercial Court relating to cancelled IPAS accommodation contracts have been successfully mediated and that a cost order has been made solely against the Minister for justice. Other commercial actions remain before the High Court. In that context, I want to understand clearly how the financial consequences of those decisions are reflected in these Estimates. Under which specific subhead in pillar C will settlement payments and associated legal costs arising from cancelled IPAS accommodation contracts be charged from 2026? Is that within administration, non-pay, accommodation or elsewhere?

Before the Minister comes in, I remind Deputy Gannon and the Minister to be cautious when dealing with anything currently before the courts.

I thought I was being cautious.

I thank Deputy Gannon. The direct answer to his question is in respect of subhead C5, international protection seekers accommodation. The Estimate for last year, 2025, was €1.3 billion and this year, it is €1.2 billion. On the specific question as to where the money will come from, it will come from that Vote. I cannot go into detail in respect-----

I do not want the Minister to do so.

Okay.

I have no interest in the detail. I understand completely.

In January, in response to a parliamentary question, the Department stated that no settlement payments, compensation, negotiating payments or financial provisions had been recorded up to the end of 2025 in respect of cancelled international protection accommodation contracts. Has any provision or contingent liability now been recorded? If so, what is the aggregate value?

I do not believe there is a contingent liability. Obviously the moneys that will be paid, if any moneys are paid, on foot of proceedings which are issued in respect of international protection accommodation service contracts will come from the Vote and subhead I mentioned.

That is subhead C5, international protection seekers accommodation.

Yes.

How many live High Court commercial proceedings are there currently arising from the May accommodation policy reversal? What is the total monetary value of claims issued to date?

There are, I think, eight claims which have been instituted. On the recommendation of the judge in the Commercial Court, a number of those have gone to mediation. I think the figure is eight but it could be nine, and it is certainly less than ten.

The Revised Estimates state that Vote 24 reflects a 5.6% reduction, primarily due to the reduced accommodation expenditure. Does that reduction fully account for anticipated settlements and litigation costs arising from the terminated contracts?

It does. I cannot go into too much detail because there are legal proceedings in respect of it. As the Deputy is aware, contracts were entered into back in 2024. There is an issue as to whether the contracts were going to be performed because there were issues which the defendants, the State, had in respect of those contracts. I do not want to get into the merits of the claim in respect of it, but there were issues arising in respect of those contracts and proceedings were issued. Some will go to court and some may be resolved.

If there is a settlement, that cost will come from the €120 million in expected savings.

There is an adjudication to be made in terms of a settlement as regards what the potential liability is and what I can get out of this. My objective in every decision made is to ensure we have adequate accommodation but also to reduce the financial cost to the State. The Estimate for this year is down on what it was last year. It is my objective to get that cost down further.

The administration, non-pay, allocation has increased significantly following programme reclassification. What proportion of that allocation relates to legal fees, mediation costs or commercial litigation exposure?

Subhead C2 shows a transfer of administration, non-pay, from a different section which is included earlier in the justice Vote. It has gone up nearly 5,000% but, overall, administration, non-pay, has a small overall decrease of €2.5 million, reflecting substantial supplementary funding provided in 2025 to meet additional costs in the areas of the International Protection Office and digital investment and modernisation programmes that were advanced in 2025.

The Minister can confirm that none of that increase relates to legal costs, mediation costs or commercial litigation exposure?

No. I want to be clear that liabilities may not arise because many of the cases will be fully defended if they have not been resolved. Any liabilities that may arise will come out of the international protection seekers accommodation subhead.

Before the Government reversed those accommodation commitments last May, was a quantified contractual risk assessment prepared? What level of potential financial exposure was identified at that time?

I do not want to get into the detail because obviously people have sued me over the fact that they claim the contracts have been breached and should be performed. Obviously, before any decisions were made by me in respect of that, I got very detailed legal advice from the Attorney General's office.

That includes a quantified contractual risk assessment.

In every case, when looking at potential exposure, you will certainly take into account what is the potential liability if the case goes wrong for you and you lose the case.

HIQA has said there remains a systematic inability in the system to meet demand for those arriving in Ireland. Recent inspections have found overcrowding and even tented accommodation in some IPAS centres. When the Government cancelled a number of planned IPAS accommodation contracts last May, what assessment was made of the impact of those cancellations on projected bed capacity for 2026? Specifically, were any of the cancelled centres expected to deliver material additional capacity this year? How is that capacity shortfall being addressed?

Those contracts to open new IPAS centres were an option that I had. For what I believed to be legitimate legal reasons, I did not proceed with those contracts. It is part of the policy, as I said, that I want to try to get the Department - I took over responsibility for this area on 1 May 2025 – to deal with the capacity it has. At present, we are accommodating 33,000 people in IPAS. What I did not want is for that number to keep growing so we would get to 45,000 or 55,000. I need to put a limit on it; otherwise the costs would be going in the wrong direction as opposed to coming down.

I note what the Deputy said about the HIQA report which came out today. I read it. There are a lot of positive things in it as well and, to be fair, the Deputy has acknowledged that. It did say, however, that there was overcrowding. At present, I cannot provide accommodation immediately to every male applicant who comes in seeking accommodation and international protection, but we are managing, after a while, to provide accommodation to people.

What I was not prepared to do as a policy was let the international protection accommodation section of the Department keep growing in size, from 33,000 people to 43,000 or 53,000 people. We saw huge expansion in it. We need to reduce the capacity we have to deal with the people who are in the system. The way to deal with that is to process people faster. I cannot have a situation where we are accommodating people for years in IPAS. What should happen, and hopefully will happen, once the new legislation is in place is that people will have their applications dealt with promptly, so they will only have to spend six to nine months in accommodation and then move on, as opposed to the much longer periods now, as the Deputy knows.

I fully agree with everything the Minister said but the fact remains that we have people sleeping in tents right now. I do not know if the tents are being presented as a deterrent to people coming here. I am not sure it is a policy that has evidence behind it.

A settlement was made in recent weeks in relation to someone who had a contract. Will that be factored into these Estimates?

Is the Deputy talking about the decision of the High Court on international protection applicants who are not provided with accommodation?

That was actually a different decision. I was talking about a settlement reached with one provider in the past week or so.

That is the one we were talking about earlier.

I just want to clarify that it is also presented in the figures we have been given here.

Obviously, that was only settled in recent times. It was announced in the Commercial Court on Monday. Obviously, these were presented at the time. I assure the Deputy that it is accommodated within the figures here.

The Estimates are also accommodated within the figures. With potentially eight or nine of these, there the capacity for this to be significant for the State.

Yes.

Will we have sight of the full quantum?

Anything I do will save the State money.

This is what the committee is for.

These were the contracts in place at the beginning, namely those signed in 2024, and they place certain obligations of the State. I have legitimate legal reasons as to why I did not proceed with the new contracts. I assure the Deputy that in terms of the cancellation of those contracts, money will be saved on behalf of the State as opposed to what would have been the case if we had proceeded with the contracts.

I fully accept that, but surely the committee will get sight of the money saved.

We will look at that again. It will probably be at some stage in the future. Obviously, I am not going to start talking about proceedings I am involved in.

Nobody would have any expectation of that-----

I am fighting cases-----

----- but we were told that there was going to be-----

----- and I am defending them. A number of cases have been resolved.

I have absolutely no issue with that, but we were told that there were savings of about €120 million in respect of accommodation.

Yes..

We also understand that this may not be the full figure.

But there will be more savings.

It will be more than €120 million this year.

If we look at what is in the Estimates for this year, the figure has gone down by €120 million or so. I am hopeful that I will be able to save more money in the long run.

Absolutely, but our job is to scrutinise.

Absolutely.

There will be subsequent rounds of questions. To allow all members to contribute in the first instance, however, we will try to keep the initial interactions to about ten minutes.

Does the Minister want to speak about the additional €8 million to support the 36 local community safety partnerships? They are finally up and running in South Dublin County Council, and I am glad to see it. I was on a joint policing committee, JPC. The JPCs need to be updated to meet the changing needs.

I have two concerns. There are no TDs on the local community safety partnerships. People from the Minister’s party would have raised this with him as well. There is a gap here. At the moment, we have one public representative per local electoral area, LEA. A TD would give a comprehensive and holistic view of his or her constituency rather than just focusing on one LEA. Are there any plans to include TDs on these local safety partnerships? I am not asking that all TDs be on them; I am just asking that there be some input.

There is also the issue of the media being excluded from covering these local community safety partnerships. When it comes to transparency, we are at a public forum discussing particular matters. Members of the media used to attend meetings of JPCs, and there were comprehensive reports of the proceedings. Those reports were sometimes critical of politicians and the Garda, which is fine. They also sometimes spoke in good terms in relation to what was happening at those meetings. What is the reason for the media being excluded from the local community safety partnerships? Are there any plans to address this?

The legislation was enacted in 2024. I commenced it this year. The local community safety partnerships are going to be a significant addition and an improvement on the JPCs. The Deputy and I both served on JPCs.

The Deputy is right that there are no TDs on the local community safety partnerships. This is not provided for in the legislation. I do not have plans to change the law to expressly include TDs. However, I would hope that these local safety community partnerships are going to be collaborative and will recognise the important role TDs play within their communities. We have a very localised system of democracy here, even at national level. There is no hard and fast rule in respect of it. If a TD wrote and asked if they could attend, that would be a matter for the relevant local community safety partnerships to determine.

The second point raised by the Deputy relates to the media being excluded. There is no rule at all that the media are excluded from these meetings. Again, I was a member of the JPC. Generally, the media could attend meetings of JPCs. There was not a huge amount of interest in JPCs, to be frank. I am not excluding the media. The Department stated from the outset that when the partnerships were getting up and running, it would probably have been preferable, on the first one or two occasions, not to have public meetings that were open to the media. It is, however, entirely a matter for the partnerships as to whether they want to have public meetings and have them open to the media. I would have thought there were benefits to that. The Deputy will know that when you are trying to get people bedded in and new people to come forward, it can sometimes be a bit intimidating if their first meeting is going to be subject to media coverage. He should know, however, that I have no problem with the media attending those meetings. Ultimately, I am of the view that it will be beneficial if these meetings are reported on.

When I was on South Dublin County Council, journalists from The Echo attended every meeting and reported on a lot of local stuff. What happened would not have been picked up nationally, but it would have got a lot of coverage locally. This needs to be looked at. Am I right in saying that if TDs are looking to become members of local community safety partnerships, that they should contact the chairpersons? Am I right in saying that? Is that the route to go?

I am not going to dictate to the chairs.

There are a number of routes in relation to it.

TDs are very nimble in terms of trying to get themselves into things that others may not want them involved in. If they want to contact the partnerships, they can do so. They will not become members of the partnerships, however.

Yes.

I have seen the membership for South Dublin County Council local community safety partnership. Neither Deputy Ward nor any of the other TDs in the area are members. That is because there was a process for the local authority to nominate people. The Deputies are not members. If they want to attend meetings, however, I am sure that any request would be given consideration.

The Minister will not be surprised that I also wish to refer to the community safety fund. He knows I have been championing this for a long time. It is very welcome to see €4.75 million being allocated to the fund this year. Has anything been put in place to allow organisations that really need this money but that might not have the same capacity as other, well-organised groups to be in a position to access some of it? When will the fund be open for applications? I have not seen an opening date in that regard.

I opened it last year-----

It was around this time, was it not?

It was a bit later. It might have been April or May. I assure the Deputy that when it is open to applications, I will announce that and everyone will be informed. It is a very useful fund. I am pleased that I got a greater allocation in respect of it. The allocation is now €4.75 million.

I hear what the Deputy is saying in terms of trying to facilitate groups within communities that may not be as proficient at making applications as others. As stated previously, there are officials in my Department who are happy to help individuals or organisations that have difficulties. They can come to me or the officials in that regard.

This matter also cropped up in the Dáil recently in the form of a Topical Issue tabled by Deputy Ardagh. There was concern in Ballyfermot that the skate park got money from the fund and that this was not repeated. The community safety fund is not used for repeat funding.

I am aware of that.

I know people get annoyed about, but the money is for one-off purposes to help people who are running important projects in their communities that will benefit and advance safety in their areas in general.

Moving on, €40 million is being allocated to deliver objectives under the youth justice strategy. The strategy in this regard runs from 2021 to 2027. It is due to end next year. Does the Minister have plans to roll out a new youth justice strategy post 2027?

Certainly, it is absolutely vital that we have a new youth justice initiative. If we look at the accounts, I think it is in respect of criminal justice. If we look in terms of the provision for the Probation Service, under subheads A5 to A7, inclusive, and A9, the bail supervision scheme, and also subhead A10, youth justice initiatives or interventions, we can see that a great deal of money is being allocated. There was an extension to the youth diversion programme, YDP, network in 2025, and an increase in the availability of YDP services throughout the State has happened. The entire State is now covered by youth diversion programmes. As the Deputy knows, this was a commitment set out in the Youth Justice Strategy 2021-2027. I am hopeful that we will have a new strategy in place. We are not just going to stop this at the end of next year.

I take it there are plans in place for that new strategy to start in 2028.

I cannot give the Deputy a definitive answer, but the youth justice strategy will certainly not just come to an end next year. I will be discussing the matter within the Department.

Some €125 million is being allocated towards the EU Presidency. My concern here is whether we will have enough cover. I raised this issue previously. When there are big events and occasions like those that will happen during the EU Presidency, what often happens is that gardaí are taken out of local stations and brought in to police them.

Is there any guarantee that this will not happen and our communities will not be left with this absence of gardaí when the EU Presidency is on?

I have got a lot of funding for the Garda in terms of the overtime budget as well. The overall overtime budget for 2026 has increased. There will be an extra increase. I think the overtime budget is also on top of the €125 million. Some of the €125 million is for overtime but there will be other money as well.

Is there still a cap in place on overtime for gardaí so that they can only do a certain amount?

I am not aware of that, no. Sometimes the difficulty is getting gardaí to do overtime these days. It is extremely important that we do not have a situation where the Garda is just focusing on EU Presidency work. It is not going to happen, though. To a large extent, the events of the EU Presidency will be in Dublin. There will be a higher visibility of gardaí in Dublin city but there will still the high-visibility policing I have insisted on, which is going on throughout the country.

I got an email, which the Minister probably did also, regarding the Legal Aid Board. The board's officials were before the committee a couple of weeks ago. There is an additional €9 million for the board. They explained last week how difficult things are and the capacity levels they have in relation to the number of people accessing their services, and they said there is going to be an increased number of people accessing the services. Is there a timeline and action plan for the reform of the civil legal aid scheme?

I got that report last year. I did not have time and could not get it into last year's budget. I want to see a provision included within the budget that will be announced in October that will reflect changes to the civil legal aid scheme in line with the report of the majority that came in. I cannot guarantee everything is going to go in there but I certainly want, and it is a political ambition of mine, to ensure that when the next budget is announced, there will be within it a recognition that the proposals in Frank Clarke's report are going to be implemented.

I thank the Minister.

Most of my questions will be on the Garda Vote. The Minister is welcome. Has he a concern in relation to the legal costs that are coming down the road with An Garda Síochána settling civil cases? There seems to be an avalanche of them.

I do not have a concern.

On 29 January in the Dáil, the Taoiseach agreed with the Minister's colleague, Deputy Cathal Crowe, who is from the same part of the country I am from, the mid-west, that an inquiry should be held into the case of retired Superintendent Eamonn O'Neill, Sergeant Anne-Marie Hassett, Sergeant Michelle Leahy, Garda Tom McGlinchey and Garda Colm Geary. The case is concluded, a Chathaoirligh, so I can mention names. The Taoiseach said there should be an inquiry. Subsequent to that, about a week later in Templemore, at an attestation, where a relation of mine actually attested, the Minister said there would not be an inquiry. I have heard his standard response since then. I am wondering who pulls rank here, the Taoiseach or the Minister. There are two totally different views.

The answer to the question is the Taoiseach, obviously----

He said there should be an inquiry.

In fairness the Deputy asked a legitimate question, as did Deputy Crowe. It is important to point out there was a full criminal investigation----

The Minister has said this a thousand times.

The Deputy raised it. Am I not allowed to answer a question?

The Minister is; go ahead.

I thank the Deputy. There has been a full criminal investigation. There was a prosecution that took place that went on for a lengthy period and the four currently serving gardaí and retired Superintendent O'Neill were acquitted. They are not guilty.

I agree.

That was their vindication. It is an unusual thing. Where people are prosecuted for offences and they are acquitted, they do not have a remedy.

I have spoken to many of the gardaí in the mid-west. I live there. Some of these are my constituents. I have gone through that case. Some of the evidence in that case stinks; it bloody well stinks. If there is not going to be an inquiry by the Minister soon, there will be an inquiry some day. The dollar bills are running up. This is going to cost us in excess of €25 million by the time everything has gone. We are going into all the legal costs in relation to the trial, all the pretrial work over seven years, all the pay for all of these people, and other gardaí as well who were suspended and who have been allowed back. There are cases I will not talk about on top of that. There are salaries due for another year. There is the loss of work, the loss of Garda time, and a huge amount of Garda resources being wasted on this case. When we tot all of that up, it is a huge figure. The question I ask which, dare I say, the Minister might ask, is this: why in the name of God was Limerick picked on? There is an opportunity here for the Minister. I am not trying to get him here. There is an opportunity here. We need direction.

We also have the case where a bike was loaned by a garda who has settled a case for €275,000, according to the media. The bike, by the way, was taken by An Garda Síochána without a valid warrant. There was no warrant for that bike, which poses a range of other questions.

In relation to the cost to the taxpayer and the State, we already know civil cases will be taken by a number of gardaí after the case a few weeks back. How are we going to ensure that this is not going to be a constant issue, if there is no inquiry as to how we got to this point? Dare I say it, every TD in the mid-west knows this stinks. I am not alone here. Deputy Willie O'Dea, the Minister's colleague, has raised it. Other colleagues have raised it. If we do not have some mechanism, we are going to continue paying legal fees and hitting the taxpayer. We are going to have continuous loss of Garda time and a continuous collapse in morale. The number of detections dropped in the mid-west by 25%. How many people who should have been off the road who were not off the road? How many criminals who should have been behind bars are not behind bars? How many cases did not go ahead because of this? These are the statistics that I want to see. I do not want a big fandangled inquiry, by the way. I just want the Minister appointing somebody to look at what happened here.

I thank the Deputy. He is correct. Colleagues in my party and across the Dáil have raised this issue with me. Like the Deputy, they are concerned about it. We need to reflect upon the fact that there was an investigation and then it went to the DPP. The Deputy should hear me out on this. The DPP made a decision to prosecute and the five people were found not guilty and acquitted. It is the case, and the Deputy may think this is unfair, but a considerable number of people are prosecuted for offences of which they are subsequently acquitted. It can have devastating consequences on their lives. I am not aware of many cases where somebody gets an entitlement to damages because they were prosecuted and they are subsequently acquitted. In terms of the damages claims, the fact that people were acquitted does not mean that there has to be an inquiry.

That is the Minister's opinion. He is going to have to damn well stand over that. This is not over. There are more layers to this. This is going to have to be examined at some stage. He is responsible for An Garda Síochána. I understand the line. I am asking him to consider this and I believe he will have to consider this. If he wants to maintain morale and standards, I am telling him it stinks. What happened here stinks. It should never have happened. Why it happened in the mid-west and in Limerick really needs to be looked into, even going as far as a preliminary look-back and appointing somebody to look into what happened here, which I accept the Minister might not be able to do today or tomorrow. He might have to wait a couple of months for other cases to be dealt with which I am not going to mention. It does need to happen. Everybody in An Garda Síochána is talking about it.

I am aware of the concerns.

When it comes to the prosecution of offences, it would be highly unusual for the Oireachtas to set up an inquiry into why the DPP decided to prosecute these individual offences.

That is not what I am saying.

What is the Deputy saying?

I am saying that Deputy O'Callaghan, as Minister, should initiate something because-----

An investigation into the decision of the DPP to prosecute.

No. An investigation into what happened in this whole scenario. It went on nine years in the mid-west. I have gardaí who live in my area who work with these people. These people's lives were destroyed. I have met them. They have cried in front of me. I have met them for hours. I know a lot of detail on this which I will not be putting out in this domain. They have been bloody well destroyed. The force there has been destroyed. Detection rates have been destroyed. Judges have given out about the fact that gardaí could not turn up in court. In any other jurisdiction, surely this would be looked at. I believe that the Minister understands what I am saying. I think his work would come some way into wondering why in the name of God this happened and why Limerick was picked on. There has to be an action. Otherwise, what is the point of the Minister?

At present, I do not have evidence that would justify me going to the Government and saying that we need an commission of inquiry or tribunal of inquiry in respect of this. Any Minister who does that would have to have evidence presented to them which indicated that there was prima facie wrongdoing. I do not have that.

I suggest that the Minister have a discussion with his Department and the Garda Commissioner.

In my remaining time, I wish to ask a question relating to the automated fingerprints identification system. A total of 17,295 of them have been lost. I look at the investment in IT that was requested in relation to this year on year. It was never done. These are lost. In June 2025, when I asked the former Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, in this room, he accepted that there was a business case coming forward. He accepted that there was an issue here. However, my colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, raised this in November 2025 and Deputy Commissioner Coxon said they were not lost. It is obvious that they were lost because the person sitting beside her that day, acting Deputy Commissioner, Paul Cleary, was the person in charge of that whole area. A report went to him and the then deputy commissioner as well.

I ask the Deputy to be very careful in terms of naming people who are not in the room.

These people were in front of the committee at the time.

I know, but they are not here now.

I accept that. They were in front of the committee.

Why was there not a level of investment put in here to deal with this issue? Why do we get to a situation where I have flagged to the Minister now for well over a year that we have lost 17,295 sets of fingerprints which cannot be used for criminal cases? Is that not a massive serious issue that the investment was not put into An Garda Síochána? Business cases were made. There is awareness within the Department in relation to this issue, yet it was not dealt with. I am going to be polite and ask the Chair and members to have a look at this, given the evidence from June and November. There certainly seems to be confusion. The language used was very different in terms of the evidence given in June and November from different two sets of gardaí who sat in this very room. The Minister is aware of this issue.

Let the Minister respond briefly.

What has been done? What investment has been put in place to ensure that this issue is dealt with?

If we look under A6 of Vote 20 - Garda Síochána for 2026, €57.5 million has been allocated for communications and other equipment. That is for additional ICT related costs, reclassification of ICT licences in 2026 to communications and operational equipment. The Garda budget contains a considerable amount of resources for the purpose of ensuring that the Garda has the best technology available. The Deputy raised a historic issue. The issues that he raised went back a considerable number of years. Is that correct?

The evidence given in this committee on two different occasions is contradictory. Is the Minister accepting that in excess of 17,000 sets of fingerprints have been lost forever?

I think I answered a parliamentary question on this for the Deputy.

The Minister never answered it definitively. That is why I am asking it here.

Whatever the answer I gave to the parliamentary question-----

That is not a ministerial answer.

It is. These are operational matters that the Deputy is asking me about in An Garda Síochána.

It is a fairly significant issue.

On technology and resources for the Garda, I am putting huge amounts of money into it.

The Minister does not know.

I will not be as dramatic as the previous speaker. I hope in the unlikely event that I go over time that I might be given the similar latitude as the previous speaker.

As the Deputy was not here at the beginning, there are no timeframes in Estimates. We asked members to stay within the ten minutes if they could, but if they go over, it is their entitlement.

There is nothing wrong with drama.

I was not here at the beginning. I apologise if some of these questions have been asked already.

In relation to the Garda College, there was €49 million in the previous period. Was that a one-off capital expenditure or what was the position with that?

The A13 allocation for the Garda College has been moved into a different sector. It has gone into subhead A1 pay and A2 non-pay for 2026. The figure for last year was €49 million. This year, it has gone up by 6%, to €51.5 million.

Why is the Judicial Council costing an additional €500,000?

Can the Deputy refer me to the subhead that it is under?

Is it under the courts?

Yes, it is. I ask the Deputy to bear with me.

It is A6.

To meet the operations of the Judicial Council, it has gone up by €500,000. There are greater operational costs there. I asked it to do sentencing guidelines. It did personal injury guidelines as well. It is an increase in the budget to meet the operational costs of the Judicial Council.

In relation to the CAB under the Garda Vote, I certainly welcome the moderate increase it is getting. It does invaluable work for us as a State.

On the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board-----

Which one is that?

It is A12. There is no increase in spending. We are at level par. Out of genuine inquisitiveness, why is the spend the same this year as it was last year? Mental health issues seem to be on the up. There is major drug abuse throughout society. I would have thought that the spend would have gone up.

That is a statutory body that determines whether persons who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity can be permitted back out into the community and assesses their current mental health status. It is chaired by Mr. Justice Seamus Noonan. He does an excellent job. The funding is being maintained. We are talking about board member fees, interpreter services and legal costs. It is a low expense level in terms of the work the board does. It is very important work.

Absolutely.

On the criminal injuries tribunal, there is an almost 24% decrease in the spend. Is there a downward trend in criminal injuries claims?

The Deputy knows himself from his job that in terms of the criminal injuries compensation tribunal that there are a number of judgments that have come from the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, in particular the decision in Blanco. We are going to have look at this more closely in terms of general damages being paid out. Previously, general damages were not being paid out. It is down €4.2 million with additional funding to support victims while advancing proposals to place it on a statutory basis.

A lot of what happens each year in the criminal injuries compensation tribunal is that awards are made and there may not be the money in that year to meet those awards, but the money then comes the next year. In overall terms of a policy for that, I will have to look at putting it on a statutory basis. As the Deputy knows, at present it is just on an ad hoc basis, but there are decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union which have indicated that this is going to become more of a legal process. I think that would benefit from being on a statutory basis.

The allocation to the Coroner Service is down 35%.

That is subhead B7. The 2025 number, which was €11.3 million, included substantial Supplementary Estimates of €6 million to fund the costs of the Stardust redress scheme. The €11.3 million is a bit of an outlier. It should probably have been in the region of €5.3 million, but we put €6 million on top of it for the Stardust redress scheme.

I thank the Minister.

As no members are indicating for the first round, I will ask a couple of questions. I will put on the clock.

I will deal with the Votes in order. The Minister mentioned 1,000 recruits for the Garda Síochána this year. Is he expecting four intakes?

Yes.

What were the numbers in the first intake?

I will get the information for the Deputy. In terms of me being in the job, the first intake was on 10 March last year.

No, but for this year.

In February this year, 215 recruits came in.

The Minister is behind target from day one.

Can I just answer that?

Yes.

Between 3 March last year and 3 March this year, 1,009 men and women have gone into Templemore.

What is the net increase in Garda numbers in that period?

Where we are at present is that we have about 14,564 gardaí, which is significantly up on where the figure was at the beginning of the year. The important thing-----

What is the increase?

You should not hold me to this, a Chathaoirligh, but I think it was around 14,200 when I came in.

There has been a net increase of 200.

It is 300.

Yes.

The commitment is to recruit 1,000 new gardaí each year, and to recruit 5,000 over the five years. The good news, which I know the Chairman likes, is that, when we look at the intakes, on 10 March last year, 201 recruits came in; on 9 June last year, 170 came in; on 25 August last year, 200 came in; in November, last year 223 came in; and in February this year, 215 came in. In the past year, that is 1,009 gardaí who have come in to train in Templemore.

That is five intakes.

Yes, that is five intakes.

One of those is in 2026 and the plan is to have another three intakes this year. If the Minister is not hitting 250 on a consistent basis, and in fact surpassing it, the overall target of 1,000 per year will not materialise.

The correct way of describing it is 5,000 over the term of the Government.

That would suggest that on an annual basis, not just in a given period from March to March where the Minister happened to fit in five intakes, in a 12-month period consistently, we need to have 1,000.

Some years we may have five intakes, but there were two campaigns last year in 2025. We received a total of 11,000 applications in respect of joining An Garda Síochána. I know the Cathaoirleach will be pleased to hear that the numbers are going in the right direction. If I can get 215 or 220 coming into Templemore consistently, we will hit our numbers.

There is a difference. If the Minister gets 250 consistently, he will get his numbers. If he gets 220 consistently, he will not in fact get his numbers. The difficulty is that he has not surpassed 250 yet at all.

I want to go back to a point mentioned earlier, the €125 million in additional funding for the Garda in respect of the EU Presidency. The Minister mentioned that this was on top of what is an increased budget for overtime. Am I correct in saying it will incorporate a significant amount of overtime in and of itself?

Yes. There will be a significant amount of overtime in that €125 million.

Therein lies the problem, to go back to Deputy Ward's point. I know what the Minister referenced in terms of high-visibility policing. For many communities across the State, the notion of high-visibility policing would not reflect what they consider to be happening in their communities.

It will come.

Perhaps, but it is hard to see how it will come within the six months of the EU Presidency when we consider that the Garda has classified 40 different events during the Presidency as needing major security operations. Six of these will require the highest possible level of security, both military and police coverage. Despite the fact that the additional money has been put in, there are going to be pressures on the Garda and the policing services that communities see, which impacts on visibility.

The Presidency will be a big challenge for the Garda. I have provided a lot of money, €172 million, for overtime. The vast majority of that will not be going on the Presidency. There is a huge amount of money provided for Garda overtime. In fact, I will bring the overtime hours available to 3.5 million, as a result of the budget that is being provided. We will see there are significant moneys available for overtime, not just to police the EU Presidency but to police consistently throughout the year. That will be evident in the high-visibility policing that hopefully everyone will see in their community.

It is hard to see how we will have high-visibility policing if we are relying on overtime. Overtime should be a necessity for events such as the EU Presidency, and people will accept that. It should not be an ongoing sticking plaster to make up for the fact that we simply do not have enough gardaí in the first place.

In respect of the potential visit to County Clare by the US President and the now confirmed football match between the Irish soccer team and the Israeli team, has the Garda raised any issues in respect of the challenges that those events might present in terms of policing?

No. The Commissioner has indicated to me that whatever events take place, whether it is the visit of the United States President or indeed the Ireland-Israel match, the Garda will police it. Obviously, it is a more challenging match than Ireland against Denmark, for example. The Commissioner has informed me that the Garda will provide policing for whatever events are taking place.

We have had the Garda representative organisations in before us. They talked about the ongoing challenges their members face in being able to carry out their duties and to respond. If we are dealing with 40 events in the EU Presidency, six of which will be at the highest possible level, and we throw into the mix major policing operations as well, all within the same fairly limited timeframe, how can that not have a significant impact on policing services beyond those events?

Obviously every event will have challenges for the Garda, but the important thing that I have been told by the Commissioner is that the Garda will be able to police it. There will be a match at the weekend in Dublin, which is going to require greater Garda resources there, but that does not mean that the rest of the city or the rest of the country is not properly policed. The Garda is used to dealing with large events. A big part of its budget is in respect of large events. I have no doubt that they will be able to police those large events, irrespective of how challenging they will be.

Are there any proposals to bring in police from outside of the State?

No.

In terms of the A6 line the Minister mentioned for communications and other budgets. He quite rightly mentioned a fairly significant increase of 44%. Is that all capital expenditure or is some part of it current?

Current expenditure will be €56 million and capital expenditure will be €1.5 million.

The Minister said €1.5 million so the capital expenditure is actually fairly low there in terms of purchasing-----

Yes, but there is capital throughout the Estimate as well. If we look at subhead A2, administration non-pay, for instance, we will have €19 million for bodyworn cameras, of which €15 million is capital-----

Does that come out of the A2 budget?

That comes out of the A2 budget. Then there is road traffic policing operational, including crowd control. They are all in that as well. There is capital in that. Capital of €80 million is in subhead A2, administration non-pay.

Okay. Regarding prison services, the committee had the Inspector of Prisons before us. He raised what everybody here would agree were very worrying reports in terms of the conditions within our prisons, which are operating far above capacity, as the Minister has acknowledged. We have also seen the "Prime Time Investigates" programme highlighting the numbers of acutely mentally ill people in prisons. I know these Estimates provide for additional staff and additional hours. However, I am not clear, looking at the staff figures, on what additional funding is in place to actually tackle the overcrowding situation. Could the Minister comment on that? What measures are being taken with respect to people with serious medical needs, and mental health needs in particular, who it appears in some instances are inappropriately housed in prisons?

Thank you, Chairman. I also met the Inspector of Prisons, Mark Kelly, last week. I commended him on the difficult job that he and his staff do in respect of it. In terms of what is being done to confront overcrowding, as I have said before one of the big requirements is that we need to provide more spaces. I know people will say we cannot build our way out of a prison crisis, and I agree with that, but the prison capacity did not increase in step with the increase in the population over the past 15 years. Since 2022, over 440 new spaces have been built across the prison estate, 126 were built in 2024, 86 were built last year and an additional 22 will become operational in the coming months. There will be further units built by the end of this year. I am also bringing forward proposals, as the Chair will know, in the Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 which will allow for the greater use of community sanctions so individuals, instead of going to prison, where a sentence of up to two years could be imposed, Circuit Court judges will be able to consider community sanctions of up to 480 hours. I think that is-----

Does the Minister accept that there has never been a year when more additional prison spaces were provided than the increase in the prison population?

Yes. As I said in the opening statement, I got approval in terms of capital expenditure around this time last year from the Government to ensure we could construct approximately 1,500 new spaces within prisons by 2030-31. That has to be done. I am also aware of the issues in terms of mental health that the Chair spoke about. A new mental health therapeutic centre at Mountjoy Prison is being funded through the national development plan. The Prison Service has a contracted delivery partner in Merchants Quay Ireland, which delivers addiction counselling and support. There is a lot going on in terms of the prisons and seeking to respond to the mental health challenges that exist there. Obviously I engage with my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, with respect to the new forensic mental hospital in Portrane. There are wards there that need to be fully opened up to provide greater space for people.

Thank you for that, Minister.

I thank the Minister for coming in. I welcome the increased budget for An Garda Síochána but my concern remains that we are not getting enough recruits into the Garda and out onto the streets, particularly with regard to rural crime on rural roads. That remains a primary concern of mine. It is not just a concern in County Louth. It is a concern I hear from farmers in rural communities across Ireland. I was recently in County Kilkenny where I heard about a person who has been robbed a number of times and has been subjected to a number of assaults. As a result there has been a spate of similar incidents in his community. The problem there is that the intimidation, and the inability to be able to gather the appropriate evidence to prosecute, have that community in fear. On foot of that, I hear of similar incidents in County Louth, County Monaghan and around the country. Garda visibility - that is, gardaí being seen - is a huge deterrent that is equally important on the dark country roads as it is on the brightly lit streets of the towns of Drogheda and Dundalk. I am concerned that we are not investing enough money. We are investing money, but not enough to have the literal boots on the ground. I will start with that.

I thank Deputy Butterly. The Government has allocated sufficient funding to recruit 1,000 new gardaí each year so the money is not the issue. As I said to the Chair earlier, the numbers coming into Templemore are increasing noticeably, so I am hopeful that we are getting more numbers coming out. The Government's policy and my policy is to have high-visibility policing in our communities. That has happened in Dublin. It has happened in Cork. It has happened in Limerick. The Commissioner's plan, in terms of implementing Government policy, is to give a good chunk of the gardaí who come out of Templemore every time new gardaí pass out to a certain area. There is a plan in place to ensure all communities will get more gardaí. It is obviously more challenging to achieve high-visibility policing in a rural area than it is in a town or a city. That is just obviously the case. However, the way we reflect high-visibility policing in rural areas is by having the Garda station preserved there and having gardaí out on patrol in the main towns and villages. Once we get more numbers in, we will see greater Garda visibility. Already, we are seeing increased numbers of gardaí visible on our streets around the country. A lot of people have said that to me in the different communities I go to.

The Minister said, quite rightly, that sometimes the issue is not just about the money. I noted he said that 81% of Garda current expenditure relates to pay and pensions for gardaí past and present. I have mentioned to the Minister here and in the past the concerns of gardaí in relation to pensions. Is this to resolve all the pension issues gardaí have raised since 2011?

There are obviously issues to do with pensions that I cannot deal with. I am not trying to disown it but decisions were made across the board in terms of public sector pensions back at the time of the crash. I cannot change them. I cannot give the Deputy an assurance that they will be changed. I do not suspect they will be. However, in terms of the packages that are available to An Garda Síochána, I am pleased that we are providing very good resources and equipment to An Garda Síochána. For example, the public order equipment has improved immeasurably. The fleet has improved immeasurably. I am going to be giving them body cameras. They now have a device that can check on the PULSE system, can check a registration plate, can check insurance and can check licences. They are a very well-equipped force, which is not necessarily the case around the world in other areas. Regarding the pay rates, obviously people will always want to pay gardaí more, but when we look at what the starting salary is, I think it is reasonable.

The salary was never in dispute; it was always the issue of the pension. The Minister mentioned earlier that sometimes it is quite hard to get gardaí to do overtime. A lot of my constituents who are gardaí, especially at the lower rung of the ladder, say they are not volunteering for overtime because that throws them over the threshold for social housing. We discussed that before. It is an issue because we are trying to solve two problems. The gardaí need to be housed in an area close to where they are serving but they will not qualify for a house if they are applying for overtime.

I hear the Deputy's point.

That is really an issue that has to be resolved for them and for other sectors.

The Minister and I were in Dundalk on Monday. I always welcome increased funds for Cuan and anything which relates to domestic and sexual violence. He mentioned on the day that there is an issue where women are having to flee their homes and take refuge in places like Women's Aid Dundalk and the women's refuge in Drogheda.

Is the Minister satisfied that we are quick enough and are investing enough to roll out enough places for these women? What further steps can we take and what investment can we make to ensure it is not the woman leaving the home with her family but rather the alleged perpetrator, or in this case the perpetrator?

I thank Deputy Butterly. I very much enjoyed the trip up to Dundalk. So that other colleagues are aware, we were turning the sod on a new domestic violence refuge for women in Dundalk. It is something happening at present and the works have started. It is very beneficial. In terms of what Deputy Butterly said about refuges, the most important thing to say at the outset is that refuges are there for the short term to provide protection for women who are forced out through domestic violence. What I do not want to see happening is that the refuge is perceived as being the solution, and the abuser stays in the house while the female victim is the one who has to leave and stay for lengthy periods of time in a refuge. That is why it is important that we continue to emphasise that people are entitled to seek barring orders. It is important we do not forget this. One of the concerns I have about talking about refuges is that people think they are the solution.

A lot of progress has been made in respect of refuges. I went to a number of the events we had last week in respect of them. At present, we have about 241 refuges and safe home units throughout the country. I want to get more of them up and operational and I believe that will happen during the year. Cuan is a very important and positive development. In 2026, it is working towards having a minimum of 50 new refuge units under construction across multiple sites nationally. That is something we are looking for in the year ahead.

This leads me onto civil legal aid, which has been broached already. I welcome the fact the Minister will look for increased funding to find a resolution, as per the report in the budget for 2026. As we have heard at the committee, and as we have heard from various constituents, this is an issue that is in itself a barrier to women's ability to obtain justice in the courts system. It leads to the continued harassment and torture of these women and children in their family homes. If we can get the budget for that to ensure they have proper access to justice in a timely manner, that in itself will remove one of the barriers. Unfortunately, at the moment in the courts there are situations where even when barring orders and safety orders are issued, the alleged perpetrator is not removed from the home, with the courts citing the housing crisis. I have no truck with this; I would have them out on their ear in a matter of minutes, never mind anything else. It is clearly wrong and we have to find solutions. The Minister is absolutely right that women's refuges are temporary solutions, but these situations are being protracted because the courts are not issuing the orders to force the perpetrators to leave the family home.

As I said earlier, I hope to bring forward proposals in the budget that will happen in October. I have to fight this battle with the Department of public expenditure and try to get increased resources for the civil legal aid scheme and, in particular, for the proposals made in the report by Mr. Justice Frank Clarke. I agree with Deputy Butterly that it is an area where people do need supports to vindicate their constitutional rights. For people to go to court they need the support of a lawyer. I want to try to ensure we increase the ability of people to do that.

I have received a number of representations in regard to the Minister's solution for the criminal legal aid issue and how it will be dealt with. I see the Minister is smiling. As he knows, solicitors in particular have been very opposed to his new proposals. Will he rethink it or will he drive on with that solution?

Some of this has come into the public domain. I had a report prepared in the Department in respect of the criminal legal aid system in the District Court. It was a very persuasive report, I have to say. My primary objective is to ensure we improve efficiencies in the District Court. If criminal cases are consistently being adjourned, that is not good for efficiency in the system. There is a benefit in looking at having a very generous single fee for District Court cases. According to the report that was prepared, there are anomalies in the system in terms of the amount paid out and the number of criminal cases coming before the District Court that are covered by criminal legal aid; they are not correlating. There is a decline in the number of criminal cases but the costs are going up. I have to do something to ensure the system is more efficient and that we have a fair payment system for everyone concerned.

I appreciate that but it is also very fair that young barristers, who rely on District Court cases in their first number of years to earn a living and gain experience, would also be paid fairly. It would appear that the system as proposed will not entitle them to fair pay.

I disagree. I am in discussions with the Law Society and the Bar Council and I think a fair fee will be provided. In terms of this report, it would be negligent of me not to act on foot of it.

I want to discuss Vote 21 - Prisons. Educational services have moved into prisoner care and rehabilitation. In 2025, the figure for educational services was €2.129 million. I presume this has been taken into prisoner care and rehabilitation, which is presented as having a 0.03% increase. If we are taking education into this heading, it represents a drop of almost €2 million for prisoner care and rehabilitation. The green plus sign, therefore, should be a red minus sign to suggest there is a decrease in funding for prisoner care and rehabilitation. Is that correct?

I do not think so. Educational services have moved from a separate subhead. Other prisoner care expenditure, for example bedding, has been reclassified to A3, buildings and equipment.

Educational services have been moved to A4, prisoner care and rehabilitation, for 2026. Prisoner care and rehabilitation, as the Minister presented to us here in 2025, had €53.895 million. I presume we are now adding the €2.129 million, which is a downgrading of approximately €2 million for prisoner care and rehabilitation.

Deputy Gannon's concern is the educational services.

My concern is the presentation of the figures and prisoner care and rehabilitation receiving a decrease in funding for this year as opposed to last year, if we factor in the €2 million from educational services.

My instruction is that it is not a decrease. If we look at it in A4, it was €53.895 million last year and it has gone up to €53.913 million this year, even though educational services have been moved from a separate subhead.

If educational services last year were presented as €2.129 million, surely that would be reflected in the figures here.

My understanding is that educational services have not been reduced. Other issues may have been reduced. Deputy Gannon's point is that the €2.129 million-----

I am also saying there is a plus sign. Where exactly is that coming from?

I am told the educational services have gone into A4 but there are other moves from A4 to A3, which explains why-----

It is not explained to us.

I am explaining it now. We move things around. In terms of educational services, I assure Deputy Gannon the figure has not been reduced in the Prison Service.

The only job I can do is scrutinise the figures as they are presented to me. The Minister is now telling me other figures are being moved to a different heading which pertain to prisoner care and have not been presented to the committee.

A number in A4 has been moved into A3, buildings and equipment.

Which?

In buildings and equipment, there is almost €15 million additional national development plan capital funding for the prison estate and €527 million national development plan funding for 2026 to 2030.

What exactly is being moved? Education has a huge role in how we rehabilitate prisoners.

Maintenance and upkeep of the prison estate, cell fixtures and bedding is what I have been informed is being moved from A4 to A3. The money for educational services has remained. It has not been reduced. If the Deputy wants, I can come back to him in correspondence and explain where the educational services are in A3 or A4.

That would be very helpful to understand. We can all appreciate we currently have a high recidivism rate, a mental health crisis and overcrowding. It is important to know what is placed into prisoner care and rehabilitation. In terms of the presentation of figures, on Vote 20 - Garda Síochána, there is a clear line for compensation. Vote 21 - Prisons has a clear line for legal and compensation. Why, in Vote 24 - Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, is there is no line for legal or compensation?

I suspect the reason is because, in general, compensation claims within the migration sphere are not as common as they are within the prison and Garda spheres.

We have established they are becoming increasingly common and the potential liability on the State is quite high. There was a recent High Court case, which was a test case, won on behalf on of two people seeking asylum here who were not given the correct accommodation. They received a payout. That was seen a test case. There could be others - it could be 50 or it could be thousands. Where would that be provided for in the Estimate we are being asked to look at today?

I am considering that judgment at present with the Attorney General. One option available to me is to appeal it. That issue has not been finally determined in respect of the liability of the State. If we seek to appeal it, it will be an issue that will remain outstanding to be determined.

I will not go into some of the others. Where are deportation flights, in which we have seen an increase, provided for in the Estimates?

In terms of giving the costs-----

I just want to know where they are provided for in the Estimates.

It is in C7, immigration and international protection programmes. That deals with charter flights, GNIB costs and enforced returns. The 2026 Estimate is €7.5 million.

Does that include deportation flights?

Deportation charter flights come within that.

There is €7.538 million allocated to immigration and international protection programmes. There were two deportation flights this year. There have been eight in total. One to Pakistan last year cost €500,000 for one flight, was it?

I do not have-----

From memory, let us say it cost €500,000 for one flight to Pakistan. There were 77 gardaí on that flight. There is €7.5 million, effectively, for deportation flights. Is that it?

That is what is allocated. There is more available if needs be.

Is it not the job of this committee to scrutinise Estimates of expenditure?

Absolutely.

What does the Minister suggest might be needed?

I am not going to announce there is a sum of money for deportation flights and we will not be able to go above that sum.

We all have a job to do. There is a heading, immigration and international protection programmes, which basically constitutes deportation flights and, if the figure is the same as last year, will exceed the money allocated in the Estimate this year.

I was looking for the cost of the one-way flights at present. The Deputy is right. We have had eight flights since I started in office. In terms of the costs, we are way below the €7 million figure.