Vol. 1079 No. 4
146. Deputy Paul Lawless asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the measures his Department will take to address and reduce domestic violence, including prevention initiatives, supports for victims, improvements in interagency co-operation; the actions being taken to strengthen law enforcement responses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5985/26]
Domestic violence and abuse is a major issue and a scourge on so many households across this country. What is the Department doing to reduce domestic violence in terms of prevention initiatives, supports for victims and reform of the judicial system in light of the recent case of Margaret Loftus in Mayo?
Combating domestic, sexual and gender-based violence is a priority for the Government and for me. If the Deputy looks at the recent budget allocation and the recent establishment of Cuan, he will see that the Government has made a very specific decision that it wants a separate statutory agency to deal with this issue. We are putting in funding of €80 million in respect to this issue, which shows an increased investment of €12 million year on year, which is a sign of the Government's financial commitment.
Similarly, we have an implementation plan for the zero tolerance strategy. That is an appropriate name for the strategy we want to adopt in respect of domestic violence. Sometimes the term "zero tolerance" is used in a general sense. It is absolutely appropriate when it comes to combating domestic violence.
The Deputy asked what is being done. A number of legislative proposals are being brought forward, such as the sexual offences Bill, which was recently considered by the justice committee by way of pre-legislative scrutiny. I have introduced a proposal that would allow perpetrators of domestic violence to be included on a new register of domestic violence. A miscellaneous provisions Bill, which came before the Dáil last week, seeks to restrict the disclosure of counselling records in sexual offence trials. As is apparent from the sexual offences Bill, I am also seeking to reform the sexual consent laws, while the miscellaneous provisions Bill contains a provision seeking to criminalise the offering or advertising of rent in exchange for sex. I am also working on guardianship rights.
The Deputy mentioned a particular case in the context of what is being done in the courts system. A lot is being done there. The Family Courts Act was enacted in 2024. I have a plan in place for the implementation of that policy so that family law courts will operate on a consistent and expert basis throughout the country. Obviously, domestic violence is a criminal offence. It is not something to be associated with family law, but we want greater speed in our family law system to facilitate all those individuals.
The case of Margaret Loftus exposes very deep structural problems in An Garda Síochána but also in the judicial system. Her story shows how a victim has been failed, in the first instance by An Garda Síochána and then by the judicial system with regard to how slow and opaque it has been and how that system was weaponised, particularly with regard to the disclosure that was consistently sought by the perpetrator. She stated recently that the judicial system was as traumatising as the abuse itself. Margaret endured over 50 court hearings before a plea was eventually offered - a process that was incredibly difficult for her, her family and her ability to move forward. It is crucial that the process be expedited in these cases to ensure that a victim can begin to live again and move on with their lives.
Last week, I commended Margaret Loftus. I do not know if it was to the Deputy but I certainly commended her in the House to a number of other Deputies. I commend her bravery and her perseverance. Ultimately, she did get the conviction she sought. A court held in her favour and recognised that she had been a victim of an assault and a judgment was delivered in that regard.
The Deputy spoke about issues in respect of An Garda Síochána. I have to mention that Margaret Loftus commended Commissioner Justin Kelly on the role he played in the prosecution and how seriously it was taken when he got involved.
I also understand that the husband in question was suspended from An Garda Síochána in 2018. The Garda, therefore, did respond to it. I want to ensure that the criminal justice system, whilst remaining fair, is sped up as much as possible. In order to achieve that, I am putting further resources into it. The number of judges on the Central Criminal Court has never been higher. We are going to create more posts for judges later this year. More judges will mean more resources and that cases will be resolved and dealt with more quickly.
I very much welcome the movement in terms of more judges. That is crucially important. We also need to ensure there are statutory timelines for these cases. We cannot have a situation where a victim has to go through the courts for more than a decade. It is unacceptable. Domestic abuse is such a horrendous violation for any individual. We should restrict the use of disclosure orders in domestic abuse cases. There is movement on that Bill and we certainly welcome that. This case presents a particular issue in terms of potential abuse and the Department should seriously review it to ensure no victim is retraumatised in the manner Margaret Loftus was.
I cannot formulate a policy based on one case. However, the cases the Deputy gives to me and other cases that are reported on the system generally influence and guide policy in the area. Some cases will take time no matter what level of resources we have put into them. For example, historic sexual abuse cases are going to take time because the gardai have to go back and seek witnesses from many years ago so no matter what level of resources I put in and no matter how many judges are there to deal with cases on an expedited basis, some cases are going to take time. We all want to make sure the rights of victims are vindicated and protected and victims get justice. At the same time, as Minister for Justice, I have to ensure that the rights to a fair trial of people who are accused are similarly protected. We do not want to go so far that that important constitutional right is compromised. It is about getting the balance right, but I agree with the Deputy that we need to speed up the process.
147. Deputy Pa Daly asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration his plans to simplify the administrative burden placed on volunteers through Garda vetting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6085/26]
The National Vetting Bureau and the Garda vetting Act have been in place for about 14 years. Has the Minister any plans to simplify the administrative burden placed on volunteers and employees through Garda vetting and the bureau itself? Will he make a statement on that given the length of time it has been in place?
The primary purpose of vetting carried out by the National Vetting Bureau is to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. This requires a robust Garda vetting process that reassures the public, and in particular parents, that appropriate checks are conducted on people who are seeking or taking positions of trust. The Government is aware that concerns have been raised regarding certain aspects of the vetting process, and we have listened carefully to the views of the sporting and voluntary sectors. In this regard, I am aware that aspects of the current voting system result in a highly segmented process. Furthermore, we believe that the vetting system should be updated to ensure vetting is portable.
Further to the work carried out by the Garda vetting review group, steps are being taken to implement a number of key changes to the vetting process that will ensure it remains robust and effective, while improving service to customers. In practice, and subject to the general requirement that vetting be renewed every three years, this will mean that when a person is vetted for the work they do, will be doing or are likely to be involved in as part of their employment or volunteering within identified risk categories, further vetting will not be required if the person moves to another role within the same risk category. These changes will require amending legislation and updating technical systems to support the revised approach. The Government is working closely with An Garda Síochána to improve the vetting process, and we look forward to updating the House in due course on progress in this matter. Our aim is to ensure Garda vetting systems continue to be fit for purpose, robust and future-proofed while continuing to protect children and vulnerable adults. We are committed to proceeding with these changes to make the process more efficient for volunteers and organisations without compromising essential safeguards that protect those in our care.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I agree with him that the system was designed to protect young people and vulnerable adults and I appreciate that it must be robust. However, as he has said, it has been segmented and we need a portable system. He mentioned that steps have to be taken. We produced a Bill in 2022 and we were told by the Minister standing in at the time that a body had been investigating the practicalities for some time. We all know that people are getting vetted three, four, five, maybe even six times in the one year for their employment, the Teaching Council or the rowing, football or soccer club. All of this has to be done, to use the Minister of State's word, in a "segmented" way. The Government has known about this for years now. It knows the administrative burden is far too much. It can be made simpler. What I want to know, and the Minister will forgive me for asking the question, is, given it has known about it for so long: when is this legislation going to be produced?
There are changes that will be made to resolve the Deputy’s concerns and ours. We have listened to the views that have been carefully expressed, we have met directly with the Sports Federation of Ireland on the matter, and our Department has also received correspondence from a range of voluntary organisations informing us of their views. We are aware that concerns have been raised as to the reliability of a portability approach and in this regard we note that where a teacher is vetted, the Teaching Council permits him or her to move from one school to another without revetting. All that is required is that a teacher is registered to revet every three years on a scheduled basis. Consequently, if this system of portability is safe for engagement with our schoolchildren, we believe it will also be safe for broader application. Drawing on the work of the vetting review group, we are committed to ensuring the vetting process is administratively proportionate while remaining robust and fully focused on the core purpose of protecting children and vulnerable adults.
What we proposed almost four years ago was that the chief bureau officer would establish what we call a register of general consents. The Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers gave great assistance so that people would remain on the register for three years, give their permission and, under section 6, give a general consent to the disclosure of vetting information to any organisation that might require it. At the time, the Minister said the Department must investigate any revetting impact upon constitutional rights, employment law and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. That is all fine. However, we have a situation with junior parkruns for example, which take place all over the country, where volunteers stand in and keep an eye on the route to make sure children run around in the correct way. There is a danger that this may be cancelled because of an ultra-conservative approach being taken where even someone who stands there for 15 minutes on a Sunday morning would have to be Garda vetted. A register of general consent would avoid this, make it simpler and encourage people to volunteer because a lot of people are put off and groan when they hear they have to be revetted for the second, third or fourth time in a year.
The problems that are caused by Garda vetting delays to community organisations, sports clubs and childcare services, among others, have been well set out by Deputy Daly. People will agree that the most bizarre revelation has been that Garda vetting is actually affecting the gardaí themselves. The Minister confirmed to me today that some Garda recruits who were due to attest from Templemore next week will not be able to even start work, because, bizarrely, their Garda vetting has not been completed yet. That is crazy.
The Minister said it is better to conduct the vetting in parallel to the training rather than delay someone starting. What happens if it turns out that somebody is going through training, having access to the Garda Training College and Garda stations and then ultimately fails the vetting process?
I am told, for example, that a Garda trainee was actually sacked last week, just ten days before their graduation, because they failed vetting. I do not know how serious the issue was in that regard, but I ask the Minister of State to confirm whether that is true and whether he would agree it is very serious. More importantly, will he outline what the Government plans to do about it?
In general terms and taking on board what Deputy Daly said about the multiplicity of factors, I want to speak about turnaround times. I am advised by the Garda National Vetting Bureau that the target turnaround time for organisations using the eVetting system is five to ten working days for over 85% of vetting applications received. I am informed that 85% of vetting applications are processed within nine working days, which is within the target turnaround time. There are a number of factors outside An Garda Síochána's control that can impact on the timeline for individual applications. These include, for example, where a person has lived overseas. In such cases, An Garda Síochána must contact law enforcement partners in the relevant countries to obtain information, and this takes additional time. Vetting is carried out by An Garda Síochána in accordance with the national vetting bureau Acts 2012 to 2016.
I beg the Chair’s indulgence to reply to Deputy Carthy on trainees. In general, all trainees are vetted in advance of entering Templemore. No candidate is allowed to enter the Garda College without a level of vetting that allows the Commissioner to be confident they are of good character. However, in recognition of the fact that the completion of the full vetting process before admission to training was delaying member recruitment inordinately, An Garda Síochána has introduced a resequencing of vetting. This resequencing means that before a candidate can enter the college, they will have fully completed stage 1 and sometimes stage 2 of the three-stage process. The remaining stages are completed while they undergo training in Templemore and prior to their attestation as members of An Garda Síochána. No one is attested as a member of An Garda Síochána unless and until they have been fully vetted.
Was someone sacked just ten days before graduation?
We do not have any knowledge of that, but if the Deputy wants to writes to us about it, we can look into it.
We can deal with that at another time.
148. Deputy Cathy Bennett asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the current number of domestic violence refuge spaces within the State; and the number he intends to have in place by the end of 2026. [6174/26]
I thank the Deputy for her question. Before giving the specifics, I will outline the method by which we organise refuge spaces and safe houses. It is through Cuan, collaborating with various stakeholders. The Deputy will be aware that Cuan collaborates with domestic violence services, approved housing bodies, the Department of housing and local authorities to facilitate local action and support service development and the delivery of safe accommodation and ancillary services.
Currently, the number of safe accommodation spaces nationwide, including refuges and safe homes, stands at 232. I am informed by Cuan that, in 2025, the number of domestic violence refuge units increased by 13 – four in Louth and nine in Dublin – bringing the total to 172. A further nine units are being developed in Dublin and are expected to be operational early this year. A 12-unit refuge located in the Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown council area is scheduled to be completed and operational later this year. By the end of this year, we aim to increase the number of safe accommodation spaces, including refuges and safe homes, to 287. This will bring the total number of refuge units to 193 by the end of the year. Furthermore, Cuan is working towards having a minimum of 50 new refuge units under construction nationally across multiple sites in 2026.
Last year, the number of safe home units increased by eight, bringing total safe home capacity to 60. Cuan is working to increase that capacity to 94 this year. Therefore, a considerable amount of work has been done in respect of refuges and safe homes. Both are important. While safe homes do not have the same level of protection and services as refuges, they remain extremely important in providing safe accommodation for women fleeing domestic violence.
In January 2022, the Minister’s predecessor committed to doubling the number of domestic violence refuge spaces in the State by the end of that year. I acknowledge that the doubling of available spaces is significant. However, the number in question is only half the number mandated by the Istanbul Convention on the prevention of violence against women and girls. That said, the Government commitment was to increase the spaces in 2022 from 141 to 282. Will the Minister outline again how many additional spaces have actually been delivered since 2022? Did he say 287 were supposed to have been delivered in 2022? How many will be delivered this year?
I am conscious of the Deputy's interest in refuges in Monaghan and Cavan. I was in Cavan–Monaghan recently. Progress is being made in respect of Monaghan and I had discussions with the local authority in Cavan.
On safe accommodation spaces nationwide, including refuges and safe homes, the number stands at 232. I realise the Deputy wants to focus on numbers but the most important thing is to ensure as broad a range of refuges and safe homes as possible throughout the country. Considerable progress is being made in respect of this. I hope that by the end of this year, we will have increased the number of refuges and safe homes to 287. There is a tendency among policymakers – I am not suggesting the Deputy is among them – when considering refuges to assume they are the answer. In the first instance, the person who should be leaving the home is the abuser, the person who has inflicted violence. Regrettably, we are now getting into a situation where it is assumed the victim is the one who has to leave.
I thank the Minister for the number he just referred to: 232. We have not even increased the number to 282, which we were supposed to do in 2022. It is four years on from the Government’s announcement of zero tolerance of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. Cavan and Monaghan remain without any refuge centres. As a member of Monaghan County Council from 2012, I was shouting about this, but we still do not have a centre. I realise the Minister has said it is not regarded as that important for perpetrators to leave their homes, but perpetrators are not leaving their homes. Where are affected women supposed to go? There is still no domestic refuge centre in Cavan or Monaghan. I know it is coming on board, but I have been listening to this for the past 12 years. When is it going to happen? It would be useful for the Minister to outline this. If he is going to events in Monaghan regarding a domestic abuse refuge, it would be good to let the TDs in the locality know about it. We are being kept in the dark and do not know when this domestic abuse refuge centre is coming on board. I was told at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts that there would be one in Cavan and one in Monaghan.
I thank Deputy Bennett for raising the question and commend the Minister for his work in this area. It is a difficult area, most of all for the women dealing with issues.
I want to ask a question. I have heard from people working with women that Cuan seems in the main to work within a 12-week window. Many of the issues women are dealing with, including difficult situations at home, require more than 12 weeks to work out. I am familiar with a facility in Killester where women were for a year or more trying to resolve issues and getting the help they so badly needed. Could the Minister comment on the strategy of Cuan? How is it meant to work?
I will deal with Deputy Ó Muirí’s point in the first instance. I was out at Aoibhneas in his constituency, which is also that of Deputy Brabazon. Obviously, there are good refuges there.
The 12-week window is not a rule of Cuan. I have spoken to Cuan in respect of it. I have spoken to the service providers. They do not have a 12-week period during which you can stay and you have to go afterwards. There is no strict rule in respect of that.
In regard to the number issues raised by Deputy Bennett, when I am talking about refuges I am not saying they are not important. We also need to realise that barring orders are still an option that is available and we should be seeing more of them so that the perpetrator gets out.
On the refuge provision in Cavan-Monaghan, the capital assistance scheme stage 1 application for a refuge site in Monaghan was approved by the Department of housing last October. Work is ongoing towards submitting a stage 2 application, which will include further detail and costing for the full extent of works. The capital assistance scheme, CAS, process takes on average 75 weeks, with construction typically taking 15 to 18 months. Safe Ireland is the lead approved housing body on this development. Safe Ireland has expressed its commitment to explore other options of accommodation in the area of Monaghan but there is progress being made in the constituency.
149. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the total number of people who were granted permission to enter the State under the family reunification scheme, where the sponsor held refugee or subsidiary protection status, in 2025. [6121/26]
155. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he is concerned that family members of refugees will be endangered by his proposals to limit access to family reunification; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6019/26]
I ask the Minister to present to us the total number of people granted permission to enter the State under the family reunification scheme, where the sponsor held refugee or subsidiary protection status in 2025.
I thank Deputy Gannon. I propose to take Questions Nos. 149 and 155 together.
The answer for 2025 is 669. The answer for 2024 was 979. Deputy Gannon has asked me questions in respect of refugee status applications for family protection. As he will be aware, there is another type of family reunification that arises as well. That is for individuals who have not been granted refugee status but who are here working. That is referred to as non-EEA family reunification. That process is not a statutory scheme. It is an administrative scheme that is run by my Department. Recently, I updated the rules in respect of that family reunification process as well. On the numbers for non-EEA, I think they were in the region of 18,000 in 2024 or 2025 - one or the other. There is also a third type of family reunification, which is in respect of people joining from EU countries who are permitted to be here to work.
The Deputy's question, I suspect, arises in the context of the proposals that have been announced by Government to deal with new family reunification rules in the International Protection Bill 2026, which will be introduced in the Dáil tomorrow. What guides the Government and me in regard to proposals in respect of family reunification is that at present, family reunification can be secured for a refugee the day after they are granted refugee status. When it comes to the assessment of the grant of family reunification, on the one hand we have to balance the rights of the individual refugee to seek family reunification against the rights and interests of the public with regard to the impact it may have on public well-being and the public purse. They are perfectly legitimate factors that have to be taken into account. When somebody is coming through family reunification, the rules at present for refugees are that they do not have to show they are going to be able to support an individual they bring into the country as part of their family.
My view, and that of the Government, is that the same or similar rules should apply for those who can bring in family under non-EEA. If you want to bring a family member in, you really need to be able to show you can support that family member.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I am very familiar with the differences between the three schemes, which is why I very specifically framed my question in the context of the family reunification scheme under the refugee scheme. I am glad the Minister gave me an exact figure of 669 because I found it quite eye-opening when he was doing an interview with "RTÉ News: Six One" a couple of weeks ago when this scheme was announced. He was asked the exact same question and his answer was that it was approximately 1,000. There is a big difference between approximately 1,000 and 669.
I was referring to 2024.
In fact, it is almost 50% of a difference.
I will go into the details of why family reunification is catered for under the Geneva Convention because it is very different. I could understand the logic if the Minister tells me that somebody comes here on a work visa and would need to be able to demonstrate. I can see that argument. I may not agree with it in its entirety but refugees have already gone through the system. They have proven their capacity to be eligible for refugee status and to have a family member here gives them the capacity to integrate, find work and be able to support. The three schemes are very different. They need to be seen that way.
When I was asked that question on RTÉ, it was in the very early part of January and I was asked what the number was for last year. I thought that was a reference to 2024 and as I said to the Deputy, in 2024 it was 979. That is what I was referring to. In 2025, it was 669.
The Government is entitled to take into account the consequences and cost of family reunification for individuals who are coming here sponsored by refugees. I know it is a sensitive issue but it is hugely affected by the numbers of people in general seeking asylum in the country. Prior to Covid, as the Deputy will know, we had relatively small numbers seeking international protection. It was around 3,000 to 4,000 per year but in the years 2022 to 2025, inclusive, collectively we saw around 58,000 arrive seeking international protection. I have to be conscious of the fact that the numbers are rising very significantly and I think that has to guide the laws that Governments introduce.
Again, I am very specifically referring to the refugee family reunification scheme. We have a high bar in this country already to achieve refugee status. In order to achieve that, the person needs to demonstrate that they fled war or persecution or that their family is from a place where loss of life would have been a possibility or where there is a direct threat to life. It is actually only 669 people and it is immediate spouse, your wife, your husband, your child or, in the case of a child that has come here, it is just their parent. There is already an 18-month wait for the family reunification scheme. If a child comes here unaccompanied at the age of 15 or 16, they would have to wait three years, so they have already timed out of the system.
I do not doubt that the Minister has a difficult job but for this particular policy change, I do not think it is reflective of a fair or just system. There is still time to change; I understand the Minister is bringing through amendments to the International Protection Bill. I would ask him that maybe we should just reflect on this scheme, taking all the others out and dealing with them individually. This one aids integration and helps the person who has already proven their status beyond a very high bar.
I will go to the European Court of Human Rights. In its judgments it has consistently said that when it comes to family reunification, a member state is entitled to engage in a balancing act to ensure there is a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant's interest in being reunited with his family and, on the other, the interest of the community as a whole to control immigration with a view to protecting the economic well-being of the country, ensuring the effective integration of those granted protection and preserving social cohesion. That is a diktat that is used repeatedly by the European Court of Human Rights in challenges to family reunification.
In regard to family reunification as well, I have a breakdown here of the figures on the make-up of the family relationships for the numbers coming in. It is not just daughters, sons, husbands or mothers; it is also brothers and sisters.
I know what the refugee scheme is for.
It is a broad collection of family members that come within the parameters of the definition. As the Deputy said, the legislation is going to be introduced. The family reunification issues will be considered on Committee Stage. I will keep an open mind in respect of it but I do think there will be changes, definitely. I will say that to the Deputy-----
Absolutely, to that particular scheme.
-----and if he puts forward amendments, I will give consideration to them.
150. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the position regarding the humanitarian admissions programme; if he will commit to accepting future applicants in the coming years under this scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5993/26]
My question refers to the humanitarian admissions programme. The Minister will be aware that it is a very important programme. I wonder if he can make a statement on it and tell us whether new applications will be accepted in 2026 or how that scheme is going to progress into the future.
I thank the Deputy. The humanitarian admissions programme prioritises at-risk individuals, human rights defenders, women's rights activists, LGBTQ+ individuals, judiciary and journalists for admission to Ireland as programme refugees. This is managed within the remit of the Irish refugee protection programme in the Department. Over 700 people from Afghanistan have been admitted to Ireland under this programme since its inception in 2021.
Under the terms of the scheme the number of admissions available under the 2025 programme was set at 50 and the number of applications received exceeded that. Not all applications therefore were successful. The 2025 programme is now complete and arrangements are being made for Department officials to facilitate the arrivals of the remaining successful applicants. All applications submitted to the Department for consideration under the programme were subject to review by officials to ensure a fair process. The Department has committed to admitting 50 applicants under humanitarian admissions for both 2026 and 2027. Further information on the programme for 2026 will be made available shortly.
I hear what the Minister of State is saying. I am not entirely clear on why there is a limit of 50 because the people we are talking about here need our support. For example, two Afghan women who are living in Ireland have spoken to me about this. They still have family stuck in Afghanistan. Their families are at risk because they have left and their families are necessarily a target then for the Taliban. We all know what the Taliban is capable of. We all know the abuse that women, in particular, suffer at the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I know there is always pressure on resources in this regard but these are people who deserve our support and our shelter and the opportunity to come here and live a life that they cannot live in their home country. They are often very highly skilled, very highly educated people. They can contribute in our community as well. Is there a reason that 50 has been picked? I am assuming it is 50 in 2026 and 50 in 2027. Is there a reason that number has been picked and can it be expanded?
I fully understand and accept what the Deputy is saying about the situations people find themselves in. There is no question that I, and the people on the coalface of operating this scheme, really understand the implications of somebody being accepted or not accepted into the programme. However, as I outlined to the Deputy, the programme is a very specific programme in how it actually handles people. Someone who comes in under the programme is provided with a very comprehensive wraparound range of services, which includes everything from English-language provision to community supports and structures. This enables those who arrive under the programme to integrate into Ireland very quickly and fully. It is because of that and because of the capacity constraints within the ability to deliver that programme that we believe setting the figure at 50 on an incremental basis per year is the best way to ensure that not only are we bringing people in, which we want to do, but also that we are delivering fully to them the most comprehensive service as part of the programme when they arrive.
I appreciate that and I understand where the Minister of State is coming from. I do not know if it is possible to say what the cost per member of that programme is, or if it has been broken down. In the context of their families, is there room to identify a person who has come here? In the case of Afghanistan, it tends to be women; often very highly qualified women such as journalists, judges and lawyers who come here and whose families remain targets in Afghanistan.
I appreciate what the Minister of State said about resources. Of course we have to keep an eye on that but in the circumstances of these people, can we identify what the per-person cost is and whether that cost is lesser for the members of their family who might want to come here? I have been in touch with lots of people in my constituency who have sheltered people and have agreed to house them when they are here. If there can be an alleviation to the cost to the taxpayer through people like that, is the Department open to this as something that could allow us to bring more people in under the programme?
As the Deputy knows, we had an original programme in relation to Afghanistan. We have moved to this particular model for the reasons I outlined to the Deputy in my earlier contributions. I think it is important, having moved to this model and having moved to an assessment system which enables what we believe to be the fairest and most accurate assessment of who can come and who can qualify for it, that we continue with the model for the moment.
I take on board what the Deputy is saying about the impact this has on extended families. Unfortunately this is a scheme for which so many people are deserving. In this country we operate it in conjunction with other countries around the world which have their own schemes in place to give that particular refugee status to people who are a very vulnerable cohort. For the moment I am happy that the scheme is operating in the most fair and effective way we can do it. I am always open to look at new ideas and new processes to ensure that in the future it continues to operate in that manner.
152. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the current stage reached in the assessment of phase 2 of the Stardust redress scheme relating to survivors of the fire; the remaining steps required to complete that assessment; the indicative timeline for bringing proposals to the Government for consideration; the nature of the redress proposals under development, including the reference points being used; the expected timeline for the commencement of payments following Government approval; the engagement undertaken to date with survivors and their representatives, including a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6209/26]
Anocht, ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire on phase 2 of the Stardust redress scheme for survivors. This is an ongoing saga between the Department of justice and survivors who have waited more than 40 years for justice. Will the Minister please outline the current stage of the phase 2 assessment, the remaining steps, when the proposal will go to Cabinet and what form of redress the survivors can expect? When will the payments begin?
I am very conscious, and the Deputy will be very conscious, that we are approaching the 45th anniversary of the Stardust tragedy. It was an extraordinarily traumatic event for the people in the Deputy’s constituency. He was not alive at the time but it was an extraordinarily traumatic event. The previous Government did a very good job in seeking to resolve and address the ongoing pain that had existed for 40 years. There was the State apology. In 2024, the Government approved a two-phase approach to redress arrangements. Phase 1 has been completed. It was in respect of the individuals who died in the Stardust and there was an ex gratia redress scheme for the families of the 48 victims of the fire. That has concluded.
The next phase seeks to deal with the individuals who were in the fire and who were injured. We have some data on that because of the Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal, which was established in 1985. We know the number of persons who went to that tribunal. It is in the region of 825. I am finalising proposals in the Department in respect of phase 2. In preparing proposals for my consideration and final approval, the guiding principles that informed phase 1 are just as important for phase 2. Given the passage of time, it is of the utmost importance that in developing an approach, we prevent further trauma for applicants and minimise any pain they may suffer from it.
I do not want this to be a litigious process. I do not want it to place any extra burden on the individuals involved. I want a simple scheme whereby the people who were in the fire on the night and were injured can receive a payment in recognition of the fact that this process has dragged on for so long. It will not be a recompensation payment for the injuries they suffered - that was already effected by the tribunal – but it is a payment in recognition of what has happened in recent years.
I welcome phase 1 and the work done by the previous Government. It is now on to this Government and the Minister’s Department. The core issue is that the commitment made to survivors has not been honoured, in their opinion. I know from speaking to some of the survivors in my constituency that people were told that phase 2 was progressing and that proposals were imminent. However, the engagement has not been continuing with the solicitors involved. Can the Minister explain exactly what is delaying the process? Is it legal advice or costings, is it internal departmental approvals, or is it a decision we need to push for? Why is the Department not communicating with the solicitors? The lack of engagement is deeply concerning. I visited some of the houses, including Antoinette Keegan’s house. She welcomed me in. I know that losing her family members still haunts her today. It is something she has fought for her whole life. Will the Minister give a commitment that there will be engagement with the survivors’ legal team?
I give the Deputy a commitment that I am going to bring proposals to the Government in the near future. I am finalising them within the Department. I want to get them right. Obviously I want to discuss them with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in advance of bringing them to the Government. That is something I will do in the next short period of time. I do not want to give the Deputy a date and then it is not satisfied. This is not a case of phase 2 being forgotten about; that is not the issue. However, one thing I do not want to happen is for phase 2 to turn into a litigious process that requires the presence of solicitors. I want a system whereby those who were injured can apply for what will be an agreed amount of recognition payment that the State will pay in respect of what happened and the delay in establishing the truth of what occurred in the Stardust.
I will not put people through another tribunal or another compensation process. I do not want it to be litigious. I do not think lawyers need to be involved in it. When the proposal that I am putting forward comes, I think it will be a very simple one and will not require legal advice in order for the people to avail of the benefits of it.
I welcome that. I understand phase 2 is not just about redress; it is practical and financial and long overdue. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give a specific timeline but I welcome that he will bring forward proposals on this. The survivors and their families were looking for a timeframe for when the payments will commence and what will be developed.
I again thank Antoinette Keegan for working with me and my office and for speaking to me in her home. I saw at first hand how it still haunts her to this day. She told me the story of being beside her two sisters when they were killed. All she wants is truth and justice. As the Minister mentioned, we are approaching the 45th anniversary. The memory has never gone away for the survivors.
I agree with the Deputy. I think the inquest was beneficial and therapeutic for the survivors. I think they were satisfied with the process that the State belatedly put in place by way of the inquest, which was important. There is no attempt on the part of the Government to move away from the decision that was previously made. Phase 2 will occur; I just want to get the proposals right. I want to discuss it with others. All I can say to the Deputy is that it is something that will happen in the near future. I repeat that I do not want, and I know the Deputy does not want, for people who were injured in the Stardust to be put through some form of new litigious process that requires an adversarial or inquisitorial process. I want a much simpler scheme that is a recognition payment, not a compensation payment for their injuries. It is a recognition payment because of the delay in the State facing up to its duties in terms of determining the outcome of what occurred.
153. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of e-scooters tests that have been completed in the Dublin metropolitan region since July 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6194/26]
I have raised the issue of e-scooters here before. I ask the Minister the number of e-scooters tests that have been done in the Dublin metropolitan region since the Garda got the ability to do it in July 2025, and if he will make a statement on it.
The Deputy has raised the issues of e-scooters and scramblers before. Deputy McAuliffe, who has consistently raised the issue of scramblers, is seated beside Deputy Ó Muirí. I take this opportunity to express my condolences to Grace Lynch's parents, Siobhán and Martin, on her horrific death last weekend. Obviously, I am not going to talk in too much detail about it because I am conscious that a man was charged this evening with a criminal offence.
On the matter raised by the Deputy, he will be aware that regulations were signed into law in 2024 by the then Minister for Transport to provide that an e-scooter can only have a maximum design speed of 20 km/h or less. An e-scooter which does not meet the technical requirements may not legally be used on public roads. Additionally, the Road Traffic Act makes dangerous driving an offence in all locations, not just on public roads, and provides the Garda with new powers of seizure.
The Garda has undertaken a proof-of-concept project for the introduction of mobile dynamometers for the purpose of enforcing these e-scooter regulations. They were distributed across the four Garda regions. Dedicated targeted operations took place with a particular focus on urban areas and larger towns. I am informed by the Garda that the evaluation period has now been concluded following the use of the four dynamometer devices nationally. I am informed that the number of tests undertaken did not form part of the evaluation. I can report, however, that there were 958 fixed-charge notices issued for e-scooter-related offences in 2025 and that there were 817 e-scooters seized or detained in 2025.
Garda authorities also advise that, further to the proof of concept, gardaí are in favour of the organisation having wider access to such technology and that gardaí operating checkpoints using the dynamometers reported high levels of public interest and engagement. People were curious and I understand that Garda management is currently assessing options regarding the purchase and allocation of dynamometers to roads policing units.
I join the Minister in offering my condolences to Grace Lynch's family on a tragic situation in Finglas. I thank the Minister for the information. There has been quite a bit of interest in what the Garda was doing. Issuing 958 fixed-penalty notices and seizing 817 e-scooters represent good progress. I support the roll-out of the technology further afield. Recent RSA research shows e-scooters are now perceived as the most dangerous mode of transport in Ireland, more dangerous than motorbikes, in fact. CHI statistics from Temple Street show that, since May of last year, 25 children were admitted with an e-scooter-related traumatic brain injury. The issues that e-scooters bring are very serious and very real for young people. The Garda Síochána's own statistics show there was a big uptick in serious accidents involving e-scooters in late 2025. I appreciate ongoing support in that area.
Last night in Finglas, hundreds of people came out to support the Lynch family and to tell the Garda, Government and particularly those who recklessly and dangerously drive e-scooters and scramblers illegally that enough is enough. Grace Lynch was a beautiful young girl with her whole life ahead of her and that was robbed from her on Sunday afternoon. Our community is sad but we are not surprised because we have been talking about it for years. In 2023, community leaders came here to the Public Gallery to welcome extensive new powers being given to the Garda, and yet today we are asking how were these new powers not enough? How were they not enforced?
I thank the Minister for meeting me today. I know he has spoken to the Garda Commissioner. I know the Cabinet discussed this matter and I have discussed it with the Taoiseach. It is very simple: Finglas wants a ban on scramblers on roads and in public places. We want the ban fully enforced by senior gardaí and we want to make sure that every aspect of the State knows that this can never happen again.
I reiterate what Deputy McAuliffe from my neighbouring constituency has said. It is not just in one constituency but across Dublin. On my way in to Leinster House one day, I saw a scrambler with two young lads without helmets. When I was pulling into Leinster House, they were going in the opposite direction on the road.
I offer my sympathy to Grace Lynch's mother, Siobhán, who spoke powerfully last night calling for scramblers and e-scooters to be banned. They are a scourge on our communities. Has there been any examination into the fear among gardaí chasing e-scooters and scramblers of Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission taking them off the beat? Is that something that is being examined?
I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I commend Deputy McAuliffe on the role he played in enacting the amendment to the Road Traffic Act back in 2023. A significant legislative change was achieved as a result of that. Today when we all reflect on the awful death of Grace, we may think that not enough was done in respect of that legislation; a lot was done in that legislation. Most importantly, the amendment of section 35 of the Road Traffic Act brought in by that legislation allows for the Minister for Transport to restrict or prohibit the use of specified vehicles in certain areas.
Deputies will have heard the Taoiseach speaking in the House this afternoon. There is a commitment from Government that that amendment of section 35 will be invoked and I think it should be. The Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Canney, has committed to ensuring that there is a prohibition on the use of scramblers on public roads and in public parks. Scramblers should be used on designated tracks for scrambling bikes - we used to see them on the television years ago - or on pathways up the mountains. They are not for use on public roads. I know we will still have the same issue in respect of enforcement.
It will be easier and there will be a societal response if there is a law saying that scramblers cannot be used on public roads.
Going back to e-scooters for a minute, I support their use. Number one, they are economical for those who use them. Number two, they are environmentally friendly as a means of going around the city. However, they have to be regulated because they have to be used safely. The challenge is getting people to use them safely. All the rules are in place in terms of age limits, speed limits of 20 km/h, safety gear - we could do more there - and passengers. People have to be on their own on an e-scooter. It is about enforcement, technology and empowering An Garda Síochána to keep up the good work they did last year and roll it out as far and wide as we can so that, eventually, e-scooters are being used safely.
I think we were all taken by the words of Siobhán when she spoke about her daughter, Grace Lynch, an absolute loss to the family and wider community in Finglas. There is a huge level of anger about what has happened on many working-class estates, not only in Dublin but in my county of Louth, particularly in Dundalk and Drogheda. There are a huge number of scramblers and e-scooters, some of which have been modified and are technically illegal, but we also hear of drone units that cannot be put into operation and guidelines that are not in place. While the Minister might say a lot has been done, not enough has been done. We need an answer. None of this is good enough. The community and the country demand action. We cannot let this go after the loss of Grace Lynch. It is a wonder we have not dealt with more of these serious circumstances in recent times.
My own view is the death of Grace Lynch is a watershed moment. Sometimes those events happen and, I regret to say, her death could be a watershed in the change of attitude of policymakers, legislators and the public to scramblers.
I hear what Deputy Ó Muiri said about e-scooters. They are a separate issue but the presence of scramblers on public roads, in parks and on public pathways is unacceptable. They should not be used there. They are a threat to people, not just because they are being driven dangerously but because they were never designed for use on public roads. The law exists. We do not have to go through the Houses of the Oireachtas making new laws. The laws are there. When the regulations are signed by the Minister for Transport, they will send a clear message and show scramblers simply cannot be used on public paths, in public parks or in public areas. It is my hope it will provide for that.
154. Deputy Shane Moynihan asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of checkpoints that were located and completed at district level for the period 1 January to 14 January 2026; the number of arrests made, breath samples taken and significant detections made relating to speeding and mobile phone use; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5964/26]
This question asks the Minister the number of checkpoints located and completed during a period in January, the number of arrests made, the significant detections made relating to speeding, mobile phone use and other road traffic infractions such as heavy goods vehicles travelling on roads when they should not be.
The most recent information I have on the dedicated road traffic enforcement operation carried out by the Garda is for the period from Monday, 1 December 2025, to Monday, 5 January 2026. That is a period of 35 days. During this period, regrettably, there were 26 fatalities on our roads and over 70 serious collisions, which resulted in a number of people incurring serious and life-altering injuries. There was no shortage of gardaí deployed during the operation. Gardaí carried out nearly 10,000 checkpoints, comprising statutory mandatory intoxicant testing and regular, high-visibility policing checkpoints. A total of 765 people were arrested during this period for driving under the influence of an intoxicant - 56% of those were primarily alcohol-intoxicant and 44% were primarily drugs. Nearly 26,500 drivers were detected for speeding offences by gardaí, mobile safety camera vans and static safety cameras by An Garda's road safety partners, GoSafe. Gardaí seized nearly 3,000 vehicles for a range of offences under the Road Traffic Act 1961. Nearly 1,700 fixed-charge notices were issued for the offence of using a mobile phone while driving and over 450 fixed-charge notices were issued to vehicle users for not wearing seatbelts.
These figures give an indication of the extent of ongoing enforcement activities by An Garda to keep people on our roads safe; and the reality that significant numbers of road users are, regrettably, still prepared to take risks with their own safety and the safety of other road users.
It is important to emphasise that checkpoints and enforcement can only be part of the solution. The use of improved technology, additional speed cameras and enhanced data sharing are also helping to ensure a broader approach to road safety enforcement in Ireland.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an bhfreagra sin. I am asking this question in the context of persistent road safety concerns raised with me by constituents and, I would say, all road users. There is a growing perception in my constituency - I am sure we see it around the country - that behaviour on the road has deteriorated, significantly in some cases, and aggressive and risky manoeuvres are more commonplace. There are issues with vehicles breaking red lights at signalised junctions and dangerous U-turns at intersections with filtered traffic signals.
As the Minister alluded to, the extent of offences detected by An Garda Síochána is significant and I commend its work. There are other, more persistent issues, such as heavy good vehicles on roads in my constituency like Newcastle Road, Aylmer Road and Kennelsfort Road. Technology can be used to detect such vehicles on those roads, as was done quite successfully in London through the London lorry control scheme. Is there any scope to introduce a similar scheme here to free up Garda resources to focus on safe driver behaviour?
I have some statistics for the period 1 January to 14 January 2026. I am advised gardaí performed a total of 3,599 checkpoints between those dates. There were 37 arrests made under sections 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act or for failure or refusal to provide a roadside breath or fluid test.
Many gardaí are assigned to road policing units and they take it extremely seriously. The statistics I have provided show clearly there is a large amount of policing of roads ongoing. The problem is people continue to break the law and do foolish things such as using mobile phones or drink-driving. Garda enforcement is an important part of the solution but the message needs to get out to people that such behaviour on the roads contributes to and causes increased fatalities.
I agree entirely and I commend the Garda on the significant resources it has put in. The new information the Minister has given me suggests it is maintaining these checkpoints at a similar rate to that achieved in December and I commend that. However, his information also shows the extent of Garda hours being spent on checkpoints.
My question focuses on whether there is a role for technology to free up that Garda time to focus elsewhere. The Minister mentioned additional speed cameras, both static and mobile. I welcome them but I encourage him to consider more consistent checks, as was done in London with regard to heavy goods vehicles on roads in urban areas. That is a matter of concern, especially for people whose children walk to school on congested roads like Newcastle Road, Kennelsfort Road, Palmerston Road or Aylmer Road in Newcastle. This improves the compliance of vehicles on those roads and frees up Garda hours. The Minister mentioned the use of drone technology to track vehicles. The Garda needs to consider how to use technology to free up hours for the high-value tasks that are important to protecting people and keeping them safe on our roads.
I agree the Garda should use advanced technology in every sphere of its work. In other aspects of criminality, technology is used to a great extent. Similarly, the Garda should be using technology. There is a very large contract in place between An Garda Síochána and GoSafe, which provides the services for the safety cameras on our roads.
The more cameras that are there and the more effective they are, the safer our roads will become. What changes human behaviour on the roads is the prospect of being detected, whether through a Garda checkpoint or penalty points coming. I agree with the Deputy. I will look into the type of technology he has identified that is operating in the UK. An Garda Síochána is aware of other technologies that are available as well. We will seek to bring in that extra technology but there is ultimately a big responsibility on people to slow down. It is people's recklessness and carelessness on the road that is causing these fatalities and they need to change behaviour.
158. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the reason funding for the drug-related intimidation liaison role at the western area support project will not be renewed; and the specific alternative supports that will be in its place to ensure victims and families facing organised crime drug-related intimidation will continue to receive equivalent specialist assistance without interruption. [6122/26]
I ask the Minister the reason that funding for the drug-related intimidation liaison role at the Whitechurch addiction service was not renewed this year; and the specific alternative supports that will be in its place to ensure victims and families facing organised crime and drug-related intimidation will continue to receive equivalent specialist assistance without interruption.
I thank the Deputy for his question in respect of the Whitechurch addiction support programme. As the Deputy will be aware, there is funding available under the community safety fund. I think I spoke to him about it before in the justice committee. It is funding that is available to go back into local communities, particularly those that have been affected by criminality, and is the proceeds of crime. Since it was launched in 2022, it has supported 127 community safety projects all across Ireland. The fund is now managed by the national office for community safety in my Department that was established last year.
From the outset, the fund has been dedicated to one-off initiatives or short-to-medium-term projects limited to two years. Documentation made available for potential applicants to the safety fund in 2025 reiterated this. It is also made clear that repeat funding of community safety-funded projects would not be considered. As part of the process, applicants are asked to outline the sustainability of their project and the potential to mainstream or scale up the project beyond the community safety fund once the short-term funding has ended.
However, I am conscious of the important and valuable support provided by the Whitechurch addition support programme. This programme clearly delivers crucial support in the community and I would suggest the sponsors contact the national office for community safety - I can give the Deputy the details - for advice on other funding streams that could be explored. In October, I announced the allocation of €4.4 million through the community safety fund to 42 new community safety projects nationwide.
There are other sources of funding available. I am happy to engage with the Deputy in putting the national community office in touch with Whitechurch. If it is a commendable project, which I believe it is, it can apply for other sources. There is no guarantee that a project that gets funding under the community safety fund one year will get it the next year.
That is probably part of the issue. I have raised drug-related intimidation with the Minister on numerous occasions. I am not sure, in terms of this particular project, if it availed of the community safety fund. I suspect it did, which is why that is not being renewed, given the requirement for a project to be something new that has not been funded previously. Therefore, it would not be eligible. I am also very conscious of drug-related intimidation being seen as something that is a scourge on communities the length and breadth of Ireland, but tackling it is not particularly well funded.
I spoke to the Minister today at the committee about the fact that the drug-related intimidation and violence engagement, DRIVE, scheme was basically funded to €280,000 a year across the Twenty-six Counties. That equates to less than €20,000 per county. I am also conscious of the €4.4 million from the proceeds of crime fund. Of the 42 projects under that fund this year, only five were in any way related to drug-related intimidation, equating to approximately €473,000. Essentially, for drug-related intimidation this year alone, the Minister's Department and the Department of Health have allocated less than €700,000. I do not doubt for a second that the Minister recognises drug-related intimidation as something to be confronted, but what I do doubt is the capacity of this minuscule funding to deliver in terms of achieving that aim. I would like to work with him. If we work collaboratively, we can get more things done in this area.
We had a discussion about this today at the justice committee and I mentioned that it was only last May that the DRIVE project had been launched. I know we had a discussion as to whether €280,000 was sufficient. It is the start. I want to see more money going into it and there is an ask for more money in respect of it. I am very conscious of the impact that drug-related intimidation and violence has on communities. It is important that those communities know they have the support of the State in combating that level of intimidation. If people believe they are on their own and they have no one to turn to, that is a very lonely place for them to be. If, however, there are support groups in place that can provide relief and support to individuals who are suffering drug-related intimidation, that can strengthen them.
The Garda take this matter extremely seriously as well, as the Deputy knows. Anyone who is subjected to drug-related intimidation should report it to the Garda. The Garda will deal with it sensitively. The alternative is we just allow the law of the Wild West to operate, and that is not acceptable.
