Vol. 1085 No. 6
1. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the preparations that have been made for the ending of the temporary protection directive in March 2027; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35912/26]
The Government has been verging on the negligent in failing to plan in an orderly way for the winding down of the temporary protection directive. Since it announced that all measures relating to the directive will come to an end next year, there has been confusion heaped upon confusion. Will the Minister outline the preparations that have been made for the ending of the temporary protection directive?
Deputy Carthy has raised the issue of temporary protection. At the outset of all these debates, it is important that we understand and emphasise the reason temporary protection was initiated in 2022. The reason, of course, was the unlawful and illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It was because of this that is was agreed across the board in the European Union that temporary protection would be initiated. It was the first it was initiated. Temporary protection is designed to provide protection which is temporary, while an issue such as an invasion or human rights violation is happening in a country.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to tell Deputy Carthy when the war in Ukraine will come to an end. Obviously, a decision has to be made at European level in terms of what is going to happen from March 2027 onwards. Certainly, at domestic level, the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I are making significant progress with it. We put forward a proposal to the Cabinet committee on justice, migration and social affairs in respect of what we say should happen in respect of proposals dealing with temporary protection. I am pleased to say that on Tuesday week I will be bringing that proposal to Cabinet. The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I will be elaborating on the detail of it afterwards.
What is clear from the results of the subcommittee is that we will be ending the State accommodation that has been provided since 2024.
However, it will remain in place for vulnerable groups of people. It is also the case that we will be reducing the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, from €600 to €400. It is important to emphasise that we have to ensure we do not have any cliff-edge ending of these supports. We have been exceptionally generous in terms of temporary protection. I welcome the fact that Sinn Féin was very supportive of the measures that were introduced in 2022. We are now going to have to taper them off in a measured and considered way.
I recall that the House was virtually unanimous in support of the emergency measures that were brought in at the outset of Russia's war against Ukraine. The temporary protection directive was an emergency measure, as the Minister quite rightly said. I do not think anybody envisaged that it would be in place for five years.
As the Minister knows, I have been arguing very strongly that we need a roadmap, not only for policy areas and to be able to plan in an appropriate way in the interests of this State but also to provide certainty for beneficiaries of temporary protection. I have argued that the outline of such a roadmap should have been made clear long before now. The approach of the Government has been shambolic and chaotic. Even at this point, there is no clarity about what will happen to Ukrainians in Ireland or what the impact on public policy here will be come the end of temporary protection. Whatever about the accommodation, which I will come to in a minute, can the Minister outline what the ending of the temporary protection directive is going to mean? People deserve to know.
As the Deputy knows, temporary protection will continue until March 2027. A decision will have to be made by the European Council in respect of what will happen after that. My view is that it will likely be extended, but on a restricted basis. In terms of what the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I are doing, the proposals which we have outlined and which will hopefully be confirmed by Cabinet on Tuesday week will provide an opportunity for people to transition to other legal statuses before the end of temporary protection. We are also recognising that, in fact, very many of the Ukrainian people here will want to go back to Ukraine. We want to facilitate their reintegration. That is something that is being sought by the Ukrainian Government as well. We will also ensure that information is provided to displaced people and that there is co-ordination, monitoring and exchange of information between member states and with the Ukrainian authorities. Nothing is going to be done on a cliff-edge basis. There will be adequate notice provided to individuals. The very generous response from Ireland to date in terms of people availing of temporary protection will continue, but we need to taper off measures and support provided.
I find some of those responses incredibly interesting. When Sinn Féin suggested that ending the temporary protection directive should include provision for a voluntary return scheme, members of the Government absolutely pilloried both my party and me personally for even suggesting that. It now appears that this is going to be part of the Minister's plan. Likewise, when it comes to the ARP and the various accommodation schemes, when Sinn Féin raised the impact that these were having on the private rental sector, for example, we were lambasted, not only by Government but also by other members of the Opposition. It is now virtually taken as read that the ARP in particular has had an impact on the rental accommodation sector. What engagements is the Minister having with the Department of housing and State agencies in respect of ending the accommodation supports and ensuring that we do not end up with unforeseen or unplanned for impacts on a housing system that is already dysfunctional and under huge pressure?
The Minister for housing, Deputy James Browne, was very much part of the deliberations of the Cabinet subcommittee on migration when the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I presented the proposals. That is an issue that has been carefully considered. I think Sinn Féin is supportive of the measures I have announced.
You have not announced them; you have leaked them.
I am giving you an answer here and now. I am very pleased to note that he described my reply as "incredibly interesting". That is the first time anyone has described a response of mine as incredibly interesting. It is important to note that there will be measures put in place and there will be engagement with the beneficiaries of temporary protection to ensure there is no cliff-edge. When we look at the level of supports that have been provided to date by the Irish Government, we can see that they have been extraordinarily generous. The amount of money that was spent in 2024 was €1.2 billion. This year, we will be spending €600 million. We have reduced expenditure by 50%. Even Deputy Carthy must welcome that.
2. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration his views on the representation of areas in Dublin Central within local community safety partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35929/26]
The number one issue that comes across for me in my constituency of Dublin Central is community safety. Large portions of the constituency are not represented on the community safety partnership. Cabra, Drumcondra and Glasnevin do not have a Garda superintendent. The purpose of my question is to ask the Minister about the structure of the community safety partnerships.
The local community safety partnerships are extremely important in terms of what the Government and I are trying to do within local communities. I commenced the operation of these partnerships in April of last year. Throughout the country there have been a number of meetings of the local community safety partnerships. I think they will be a major improvement on what was there before, namely the joint policing committees.
I am very pleased to note that the Dublin Central local community safety partnership had its first meeting on 26 January. Councillor Cieran Perry was elected as chair and Gerry Breen was elected as vice chair. I worked with both of them on Dublin City Council. They are two fine public representatives. Gerry Breen is no longer a public representative, but I certainly have great confidence in Cieran Perry and, indeed, Gerry Breen. There are currently 26 members appointed to it. The purpose is to try to ensure that we get across-the-board representation of youth services, the business community, older persons, and addiction and substance misuse support services, which are very important in Dublin Central. The constituency encompasses Cabra, Glasnevin and the north inner city.
The issue the Deputy is concerned about is in respect of the superintendents. It is my understanding that there are superintendents from Mountjoy, Store Street and the Bridewell on it. The Deputy's concern is that Cabra and Glasnevin superintendents may not be on it. I want to emphasise that there is flexibility in terms of the attendance of superintendents. My information from An Garda Síochána is that if information is required in respect of Glasnevin or Cabra, that can be provided. There is good Garda representation there. What we want to do is to try to change the local community safety partnerships from joint policing committees, which sometimes just had a phalanx of senior gardaí sitting there listening to councillors. We need a broader representation and that is what I think this committee will provide.
It was not just councillors; TDs were also eligible to go to the joint policing committee structure. I was a regular attender at meetings of my local joint policing committee. Here is my issue. We constantly hear about a large Garda presence in the city centre. This is something the Minister has championed. I will possibly discuss that again later. However, I will give the example of communities like Cabra or even Drumcondra, which is actually covered by Ballymun Garda station. In Cabra last week, a constituent of mine was going around the Bogies roundabout. A load of lads wearing balaclavas came past on scooters. The man in question tried to ring the local Garda station in Cabra but he got no answer, so he had this innovative solution. He rang the Garda station in Rathmines. The call was answered but, obviously, the gardaí there could not process the complaint. The man's action was born of frustration. We are not getting gardaí in Cabra. We are not getting gardaí to respond to burglaries in Drumcondra. I am sure the Minister is hearing this on the same doors in the same way I am. They do not have representation on the community forum structures set up to address these issues. We are in a bit of a quagmire here in the sense that Garda numbers are not reflective of what we are being told in the communities outside the commercial city centre. The prospect for representation on the structures does not exist because the superintendents are not there.
In terms of the narrative the Deputy outlined in respect of his constituent, I repeatedly attend meetings of residents' associations at which, very appropriately, members of An Garda Síochána turn up. The message I consistently hear is that if you want to get the assistance of An Garda Síochána, the most appropriate thing to do is to phone 999. I know that we sometimes think we should only phone 999 if it is an emergency. In fact, the most effective way of having a complaint processed expeditiously and efficiently is to phone 999. I urge people such as the Deputy's constituent to do that.
On the previous occasion I was in the Dáil speaking about Garda numbers, one of Deputy Gannon's Opposition colleagues - not someone from the Social Democrats - said that he cannot leave Leinster House without tripping over gardaí. There are a lot of gardaí in Dublin Central at present. As Deputy Gannon knows, we have initiated a high-visibility policing campaign. That is still operating, and there are very many gardaí in the city centre. I want to see more gardaí deployed in suburban areas such as Glasnevin and Cabra, and I think that will happen as numbers increase.
No more than the Minister, I cannot speak for a member of a party that is not my own. I do not doubt for a second that when I walk outside Leinster House, I will see a number of gardaí. When I leave RTÉ if I am doing an interview in the morning, I see a lot of gardaí in the Donnybrook area. I cannot escape the fact that when I am walking around my constituency, certainly the parts of it outside the O'Connell Street area, it is very difficult to find gardaí. This comes up constantly. I attended a residents' association meeting in Drumcondra recently at which there was a discussion on the increasing number of burglaries and the fact that gardaí are not arriving until two or three days later to investigate. The issue in Cabra is that people are being directed to call 999 - I have issues with that - but they still want to have a sense that they can call their local Garda station if something is happening in the immediate vicinity. The problem is that because of the level of high-visibility policing in the commercial city centre, the residential communities surrounding it feel they are being left behind. This is a matter I would like the Minister to address, perhaps through the structures of community safety partnerships. Maybe he will make a comment on it.
Residential areas are not being left behind. What is happening is that increased Garda resources are being placed in areas that require high-visibility policing. We are starting in the inner city. As stated, this will be rolled out to more residential areas and throughout the country. The recorded crime statistics released on 26 March 2026 are quite revealing. They report a reduction in recorded crime in nine categories for 2025 in the Dublin metropolitan region, DMR, north central and north Garda divisions. These categories include damage to property, the environment and burglary-related offences. I am informed the Central Statistics Office, CSO, reported a reduction in recorded crime in eight categories for 2025 in the DMR west Garda division. High-visibility policing is having an impact in reducing crime. The only basis I can go on to assess whether crime numbers are going up or down is that of the recorded figures coming from the CSO. Based on these, high-visibility policing and the work of An Garda Síochána are proving effective.
3. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will review the operation of section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017, which relates to information connected to investigations and criminal proceedings, to ensure that the rights of victims under this section are applied in a consistent manner and that the provisions it contains meet the needs of victims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35913/26]
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act includes provisions for information to be shared with victims of crime. It is ten years since the legislation was enacted. Does the Minister have plans to review the operation of this section to ensure that the provisions it contains are being applied on a consistent basis?
I thank Deputy Carthy for raising this matter. This provision was very novel when the legislation was enacted nearly ten years ago in terms of that fact that it set out statutorily the information that victims of crime are entitled to. Deputy Carthy's question refers to section 8. In effect, the 2017 Act transposed Article 6 of the EU victims directive into domestic law. It established minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims. Section 8 relates to a victim's right to receive information about their case.
I am pleased to tell Deputy Carthy that political agreement has been reached between the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament on an amending victims' rights directive. The text in this regard is being finalised for formal adoption. This is expected to happen shortly. Ireland has actively engaged in the negotiations. In many respects, the enhanced provisions reflect practices that are already in place nationally under existing legislation. The aim behind the revised directive is to address existing gaps in protection and support by introducing higher and more consistent standards for victims of crime throughout the EU, including in relation to access to information and support services, reporting mechanisms, data protection, individual assessment of victims' needs, enhanced support during court proceedings, access to legal aid and compensation.
The direct answer to the question is that there will be a review of the rights to which victims are entitled. As Deputy Carthy knows, however, the 2017 victims Act was a transposition of an EU directive. That directive is being amended. Once the directive is agreed by us and our European partners, I will introduce proposals not too long afterwards, hopefully. As a matter of standard practice, officials in the Department review victims' rights legislation. It is anticipated that this process will include consideration of whether additional guidelines or protocols are required.
To be clear, there is no requirement whatsoever to wait for an EU legislative process to conclude before we change measures in domestic law, particularly in terms of enhancing support for the victims of crime. The justice committee met in recent days to discuss the victims of crime civil protection orders Bill that I am trying to progress through the House. We heard moving testimony from Sonya Stokes, who the Minister is aware of. Sonya was the victim of horrendous crimes committed by a man who had previously committed several other horrendous crimes. Following his release, Sonya highlighted how traumatised she was and how fearful she was that some form of retribution would be sought. She found out on 30 April that her attacker had deceased in a nursing home on 5 December 2025. She was not informed of the fact. This is one anomaly that we could look at changing. It would only take a technical amendment to the legislation. Would the Minister be open to that?
I thank Deputy Carthy for referring to the committee's hearing. I was aware of that the civil protection orders Bill was being considered. I am also aware of the case of Sonya Stokes. This is an area I will look at. Providing information to victims about a person convicted of an attack upon them is something that is understandably useful to victims of crime. There is also the issue of exclusion orders. One thing people find very traumatic is the prospect that they could bump into their attacker after he is released from prison. It is certainly the position that in the case of people who have life sentences imposed upon them, the Parole Board, because of legislation that has been introduced, can restrict their movements or develop exclusion zones in order that they are prevented from going into certain areas and have to stay away from their victims.
This is something I will consider. I must also take into account the need to allow people coming out of prison who have served their sentences to get on with their lives. There is a mechanism in that regard.
I might not have been clear. I specifically asked about victims being informed that their attackers have deceased subsequent to release. In relation to section 8, the difficulty is that many of the testimonies we hear are inconsistent. Many victims have told me that they are incredibly happy with their engagement with the Garda or the Prison Service. Others are unhappy because they do not believe section 8 has been applied to the standard they would have expected in terms of their being informed of developments. I was told in one case by somebody who lost their partner, who was unlawfully killed, that the person responsible was to be released. They got a simple one-line email from the Prison Service informing them of the fact. We can imagine how disruptive it is if the person who killed the father of your children is going to be released and all you get is a cold email. The onus should not be on victims to pursue these things, and we all agree on that. The review of section 8 is crucial.
I am looking through section 8. There is a lot of information that must be provided to the victim in terms of an appeal, a parole application and the release of the individual. This is information that should be provided. Deputy Carthy's specific question is whether a victim should be told when their abuser or attacker who has been convicted dies. I need to consider that. Obviously, we could have a situation where somebody committed an offence in their early 20s and gets out in their early to mid 30s. If we were to impose this obligation, it could mean that 40 years later there would be an obligation on the State to inform a victim that the person who attacked them some 50 or 60 years previously has died.
I need to make sure that could operate effectively. I would have thought that if the person convicted dies in prison that should be provided. However, I am worried about putting it into law.
4. Deputy Roderic O'Gorman asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration for an update on the deployment of 1,000 additional gardaí to Dublin city centre, in line with the recommendations of the Dublin city task force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36142/26]
I am seeking an update on the recruitment of an additional 1,000 gardaí for Dublin city centre. This was one of the ten big moves recommended in the Dublin city task force. Is it still Government policy to recruit these additional 1,000 gardaí and what is the timeline for delivery?
I thank the Deputy for his question. It certainly is the Government's objective in the programme for Government to recruit 5,000 more gardaí during its term. We certainly want to achieve the objectives set out in David McRedmond's report that there would be 1,000 more gardaí for Dublin. This is very much dependent on resources and the numbers that come into An Garda Síochána. I also have to be conscious that although we are both Dublin Deputies, other Deputies are understandably insistent that whenever new recruits come out some go to their areas as well. I do not get involved in directing the Garda Commissioner as to where recruits should go but I tell him that I want to see high-visibility policing. In order to achieve the objective Deputy O'Gorman and virtually every other Member of this House wants in their constituencies resourcing and numbers need to increase but they are looking good. Two weeks ago, the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, and I were at a passing out in Templemore and 193 new recruits passed out. More importantly, the following Tuesday 200 went in. We are consistently seeing 200 go in and come out for each intake. I need to see that continue. I was pleased the other day to launch the latest recruitment campaign for An Garda Síochána. Since September 2024, 728 probationary gardaí have been assigned to the Dublin metropolitan region, and I believe recruitment is gathering momentum. People are now realising that being a member of An Garda Síochána is an interesting job. There is a whole variety of units available. Today, there are approximately 14,661 sworn members. We are getting close to the highest ever. In fact, this year I believe we will beat the highest ever and I hope to come back to the House on that.
The Dublin city task force report was published in October 2024 and there was a lot of fanfare about it at the time. It was presented as a definitive blueprint to reclaim the capital's streets after the events of the Dublin riots and a wider visible decline in public safety across the inner city. Big move number four of that report was the deployment of a minimum additional 1,000 gardaí within the city centre on a phased basis. That number was not pulled out of thin air. It was seen as the minimum required to meet average European policing standards for a city of this size. We are now well into 2022 and for the people living, working and commuting across Dublin the reality on the ground tells a different story. The net increase in garda numbers across the city centre district is 40 in the year and a half since the report was published. Will the Minister give me a timeline as to when he believes the additional 1,000 gardaí will be provided?
We are committed to following what is set out in the task force report. I cannot give a date as to when there will be 1,000 extra gardaí in the city. What I can give is assurance from being around the city centre that we now have high-visibility policing in Dublin city centre. That has had a transformative effect. We are getting gardaí out on the streets patrolling who were previously in stations. It is providing a great sense of confidence and safety to people who come into Dublin. My view is that it has had a significant impact, and I commend the Commissioner in that respect.
Obviously, in order to keep that going and ensure that other aspects of Garda services are continued we need to get more recruits in. It is about getting the numbers up but it is a positive outlook at present. Not only is recruitment going well and we have had a new recruitment campaign but retention within An Garda Síochána is high. Less than 1% resign from An Garda Síochána annually, which is extremely low.
To put the numbers in perspective we have seen approximately a 4% increase in city centre garda numbers. On the current trajectory, to meet the figure of 1,000 additional gardaí, it looks like we will meet that sometime around 2063. I hope the Minister understands the frustration people feel when governments announce big headline figures. The then Taoiseach and current Tánaiste wrote a big editorial in the Irish Independent after that report was published. I remember he used the line, "I'm up for it, are you?" It does not sound like the Minister and his Department are up for achieving recommendation number four of 1,000 extra gardaí. This is central to creating a sense of safety and security across the inner city and in the communities in the inner city. This is not just about, as the Minister said to Deputy Gannon, gardaí outside Leinster House. This is gardaí located in communities creating a sense of safety. Will the Minister give us some indication of when those 1,000 gardaí will be available?
I remain committed to recommendation number four. I want to see an extra 1,000 gardaí in Dublin. However, the Deputy was in government as well. He knows that things do not just happen with a click of the fingers or overnight. In order to get 1,000 new gardaí into the force in Dublin, I need to recruit them nationally. That cannot happen overnight. I am sure the Deputy can appreciate the challenges associated with that. The point I was making to Deputy Gannon is one I made about something said by a previous opposition spokesperson, that when you walk around Dublin and not just Leinster House, high visibility of gardaí is evident. That is the case. People say it to me and to lots of people in this House. It is apparent and it is making a dramatic improving impact on the city and people's sense of safety. I remain committed to recommendation number four but the most important priority is to get gardaí out on the streets, so people feel a sense of safety, not just in the city centre but in residential areas throughout the country.
5. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he intends to extend the provisions of section 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Act 2024, requiring that character references be given on oat to other criminal offences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35914/26]
Does the Minister intend to extend the provisions of section 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Act that requires character references to be given under oath, to criminal offences other than those included in the original legislation?
It is important, and I commend the Deputy for mentioning section 14 of that legislation because sometimes it is forgotten about. It was commenced in August 2024, so it is only beginning to operate in the past year or so. In effect, it means that if somebody wants to give character evidence in respect of a person being convicted of a serious sexual offence, or of rape, which is the most serious, in order to give that character evidence, they have to do it on oath or affidavit. The former means giving evidence in the court. I think that is the most appropriate way for character evidence to be given in serious offences. Obviously, if people are convicted in the District Court for minor offences I do not think it a tenable requirement that anyone wanting to give character evidence has to give it in a District Court. Certainly, when it comes to serious offences, if you wish to give character evidence in respect of an individual, then the preferable way to do it is in the witness box or on affidavit. Sentencing is a complicated issue and a difficult part of a judge's function. Not only are you sentencing the offence but you are sentencing the offender. You need to have information, if you are a judge, about the offender in order to determine what level of sentence should be imposed. If somebody has a series of previous convictions and there are other issues, a court will take that into account when imposing a sentence. Similarly, if it were a first offence or out of character that is something the court needs to take into account. The appropriate way to do it is not by writing a letter or doing an informal character note. The appropriate way to do it is to ensure you get into the witness box and stand over it.
In many respects the Minister has made the first half of the argument. My point is whether you move to the second logical part of the argument and expand the provisions of this section to include other serious crimes. I am thinking particularly of homicide. It has been seen in the courts that the distinction between somebody just writing a letter saying a particular man or woman is a sound person or whatever and knowing that is something that needs to be done on affidavit or potentially in the witness box is an important one. It sets out the importance of a character reference in any case but especially for serious crimes. Is there any examination in the Department of expanding the section even further?
The Deputy mentioned homicide. Obviously it does not really arise in, say, a murder conviction because somebody is going to automatically face a mandatory life sentence. In terms of manslaughter, it does not apply at present. In general what happens in a case like that is the counsel representing the convicted person at the sentencing hearing will set out what he or she believes are mitigating factors the court should take into account. My view, which I spoke about even before the 2024 legislation commenced, is that it would be preferable if somebody wants to give character evidence in a serious offence - and I emphasise serious, as this cannot be happening the District Court or we would just clog it up - the most appropriate way to do it is on affidavit or by giving evidence in the witness box. That will also remove the informality of it. Sometimes people think they will just write a letter. Generally they are pointless and inappropriate but if you want to assert something about somebody's character you should do it formally.
Clearly when I talk about homicide I am not talking about murder but I have spoken to some victims who were in court for the sentencing of perpetrators who were convicted of actions resulting in the killing of their loved one and the introduction to the sentencing stage of unverified testimony not given under oath or by way of an affidavit really traumatised the family even further. This is often the case where somebody has pleaded guilty to an action that has resulted in the death of somebody else, so there is no trial as such. In many ways, the victims' families feel that perhaps the full truth has not come out about the actions of the person who is responsible and then ultimately, prior to sentencing, a number of testimonies are provided about how great a person this was. In that type of scenario I think the Minister is saying he recognises that type of testimony should be given on affidavit or in the witness box. Will he legislate to ensure that is the case?
It is a complicated issue. Sentencing is complicated. When we discuss it here the emphasis is hugely on the situation of the victim, as it should be. For too long in Ireland the victim did not get the recognition in the criminal justice process. However, a court also has to take into account the individual circumstances of the convicted person. That can be complicated and sometimes evidence of that convicted person - the offender - is necessary. How should that evidence be given? I certainly do not think it is appropriate for that evidence to be just a handwritten note or somebody who does not know the person that well providing that evidence. That is evidentially useless. If somebody wanted to give evidence and say this conviction was out of character, that they have known this person for 20 years and that there were circumstances behind it, then that should be done under oath.
I do not want to give the Deputy a commitment today about introducing legislation to that effect but it is something I will give consideration to.
6. Deputy Michael Murphy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will provide an update on proposals to introduce official identity cards, including photographic identification, for peace commissioners; the current status of engagement with his Department on this matter; and the timeframe for implementation. [30587/26]
I understand that under the Minister's predecessor, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, a review group was established to examine the provision of official identity cards for peace commissioners. Will the Minister provide an update on what work has been carried out, whether any recommendations have been made and whether the Department intends to move towards the implementation of an official identification system for our peace commissioners?
I thank the Deputy for his question. In line with the provisions of section 88 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, peace commissioners are appointed, and may be removed from that appointment, by the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and each newly-appointed peace commissioner is issued with a warrant of appointment. The Department informs An Garda Síochána of all newly-appointed peace commissioners in relevant areas and indeed the Garda has a role to play in vetting all applicants for the position of peace commissioner.
The warrant of appointment is an important document which should be retained at all times by an individual while they are in the office of peace commissioner. Where an individual or a body requires further confirmation that a person has been appointed as a peace commissioner, it is open to them to contact the peace commissioner unit in the Department. The warrant of appointment for a peace commissioner is a unique document and as such replacement or duplicate warrants are not issued. If a peace commissioner misplaces their warrant they may write to the Department requesting a letter confirming their inclusion in the roll of peace commissioners.
I can advise the Deputy that a review of the role and functions of peace commissioners, as well as of the appointment process, is currently under way in the Department and will include consideration of matters regarding identification of peace commissioners. Other areas of focus in the review include a review of the existing functions and powers of peace commissioners, appointments, removal and complaints procedures for peace commissioners, as well as the updating and maintenance of the roll or register of peace commissioners and consideration of making the roll available online.
I thank the Minister of State. For transparency, I put on record I am a peace commissioner and a commissioner for oaths. I think we have approximately 4,500 peace commissioners appointed nationwide. As the Minister of State said, they carry out vital functions on a voluntary basis, including witnessing signatures, verifying documents and assisting citizens who may otherwise have limited access to such services locally. However, in carrying out these duties many peace commissioners are increasingly finding themselves in situations where they are required to provide their own identity and official status despite not having formal photographic identification issued by the State.
I welcome that the review is ongoing. When identity fraud is growing all the time, I ask the Minister of State to give serious consideration to such an identity card.
I thank the Deputy. I agree with him on this. Part of the work of reviewing the roll of peace commissioners is with a view to making it as accurate as possible. Obviously there is a legacy of records and retained data. Given the roll of peace commissioners goes back nearly to the foundation of the State it is quite a complex and lengthy undertaking but good progress has been made. Once that work has been completed, consideration will be given to making the roll of peace commissioners available online and accessible to the public. That will give them the assurance they can search online to verify a person is a peace commissioner.
On identification, the issue is complex and involves a number of legal and technical considerations, including data protection and also appropriate confidentiality and personal safety.
I thank the Minister of State. This is a practical and sensible solution. It would provide reassurance not only to peace commissioners but also to members of the public engaging with them. A member of An Garda Síochána can produce an official warrant card yet a peace commissioner, despite exercising a very important statutory function, has nothing comparable to confirm their position.
I accept what the Minister of State is saying in terms of the initial letter of warrant, but I am talking about photographic identification. Given the relatively modest scale of such a measure, I again ask that the Minister of State give serious consideration to progressing it and commit the Department to a timeline for the next steps following this ongoing review process.
I agree with the Deputy. It is my view that it should be progressed and it is also the view within the Department. I think the overall review that we are conducting will come to that conclusion also. I flag to the Deputy, though, that it is not provided for within the legislation at the moment, so we will have to come up with some kind of a system or an administrative fix to be able to manage that appropriately.
