Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
73. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the progress that has been made to secure a bilateral agreement with Britain to ensure those international protection applicants who should be processed in Britain can be returned there in a timely manner; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [68314/25]
View answerThe Minister has stated publicly on a number of occasions that a significant proportion - in fact, the vast majority - of those seeking international protection in this State are coming from Britain via the common travel area. It seems logical to most people that we need a bilateral agreement with Britain to ensure those international protection applicants who should be processed in Britain are returned there in a timely manner. What progress is being achieved in securing such an agreement?
I thank Deputy Carthy for his question. He is correct in identifying that there clearly is a lot of fluidity between asylum applications in the United Kingdom and Ireland because individuals can travel freely from Britain to Northern Ireland and, because of the common travel area, there is no barrier to individuals travelling south from Northern Ireland into this jurisdiction. Similarly, it operates in the other way. Many people can fly into Dublin Airport, freely travel up to Northern Ireland and then readily transfer over to Britain. It is an issue in the context of assessing applications for international protection.
It is important to set out the situation that pertained previously. Prior to Britain leaving the European Union, Britain was part of the Dublin III regulation and, therefore, returns could operate in respect of people who had come from Britain and applied for asylum here. After Brexit that changed. Promptly after Brexit, we designated the United Kingdom as a safe third country but that was fairly rapidly challenged and the court ruled it could not be categorised thus for a period. Then, earlier this year, on 11 March, I designated the UK as a safe third country. However, because the UK is outside of the EU, we do not have an operationalised system of returns between the UK and Ireland at present. My officials are in discussion with officials from the Home Office and I will be talking to the Home Secretary again in the week after next. I had very good engagement with the previous Home Secretary and I assume I will have the same good engagement with the current one. That said, I have to point out that the political reality is such that the UK is not going to enter into an agreement with Ireland whereby it simply takes back individuals who have applied for asylum in Ireland because they emanated from the UK. We can see what is happening in France. I agree with Deputy Carthy that there has to be greater engagement with the UK and I am in the process of doing that.
The Minister will be aware that this week, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in its pre-legislative scrutiny report on the international protection Bill asked that consideration be again given to opting out of the EU migration and asylum pact because that pact does not take cognisance of the fact we operate within a common travel area. Ireland is in the unique position of being an EU member state that also has a common travel area with a state outside of the EU. It is becoming increasingly clear that the pact fails to take account of Ireland's unique challenges. I am concerned at the lack of priority that the Minister is giving to what is a programme for Government commitment to prioritise working with the British Government to introduce further measures in respect of the common travel area. No progress has been made.
Is the Minister going to take account of the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the committee and prioritise this issue? It needs to be prioritised.
Progress has been made with the British Government. There is very good engagement between my Department and the Home Office. The only way we will be able to resolve the issues of concern to the Deputy and me is through collaboration and co-operation with the British Government. He keeps mentioning that we should not have opted in to the pact, but he must then present to the public the consequence of that. The consequence of not opting in is that the 2015 International Protection Act would still apply, as would the 2004 directives giving effect to that. It is not as simple as saying that we should not have opted in to the pact. If we had not opted in to the pact, we would still have the same issue under the 2015 legislation and that does not resolve the issue we are facing. There needs to be an awareness that opting in to the pact has not precluded us from doing what we want to do. The reason we have had a significant change is that the British have left the European Union. It is as a result of the British leaving the EU that we have this issue in our common travel area. I would appreciate if Deputy Carthy and Sinn Féin would say that the common travel area is for the benefit of citizens of Ireland and the UK and not for anyone else. That would be a considerable contribution.
I will say that if it makes the Minister happier.
Well done. That is one in a row and the first time he has said it.
The Minister should also say, as all of us in this House should say, that managing migration would be much easier if we were doing it on an all-Ireland basis within a unitary state framework and that, therefore, we should try to advance the reunification of our country for that and many other reasons.
In 2020, Ireland and Britain agreed informal, non-legally binding operational arrangements to return asylum seekers to each other. How many have been returned to Britain from Ireland? I ask the Minister to provide real figures. Different percentages have been cited in terms of the numbers that are coming through the common travel area. We do not know the numbers for sure because we are not compiling data on people who might, for example, have come for tourism or on student or work visas and subsequently applied for international protection, or on those who applied in any other way. If the figures are anywhere close to those that have been cited, then it is negligence that ensuring we have an arrangement in place is not at the top of the Minister's list to . As he rightly says, the British Government has a potential benefit from this as well if what it is stating is the case.
In response to the Deputy's specific questions, in 2019, of 35 people transferred, 33 were sent to the United Kingdom. In 2020, of eight people transferred, seven were sent to the UK. This is at the top of my list. In fact, I am criticised for trying to deal with issues in respect of international protection and for giving too much priority to it but it is an absolutely essential issue. In terms of what the Deputy said about the figures, what we have is an assessment that the figures are very high because huge percentages of people are applying for international protection at the International Protection Office, IPO. They are not applying at the airport and while it is not conclusive, we believe it is strongly persuasive evidence that those individuals who apply for asylum at the IPO are coming south over the Border. That is supported anecdotally as well. The percentage of people applying for asylum at the IPO is 87%.
As I have said previously, there are many people going in the other direction. When I speak to the Home Secretary, she will be saying to me that she has great concern about people flying into Dublin Airport and coming into Britain through Northern Ireland.
Then let us have a bilateral agreement.
They have a bilateral agreement with the French and it is one in, one out. They are realistic politicians.
We have a common travel area.
That agreement is one in, one out.
74. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the full details of the remuneration packages and any other financial costs to the State related to the appointments and terms served of the current Garda Commissioner and the previous Garda Commissioner. [68764/25]
View answerAs the Minister is aware, I asked a number of parliamentary questions regarding the remuneration of the former Garda Commissioner but the information provided to me was not accurate. It was misleading. There was a deal with the former Commissioner in relation to his accommodation and that rent was not indexed, so there was a loss to the taxpayer. Essentially, his rent was subsidised and paid for. Is the Minister going to provide the full details? Will he apologise and correct the record? In future, will he ensure his answers are not misleading to this House?
I want to start by apologising to Deputy Kelly. He asked a question on 23 September and asked the same question on 9 October. In both questions, he asked about the total remuneration package paid to the current Garda Commissioner and the former Garda Commissioner. The answer he got was incomplete. It was very restricted in that it outlined only the salary of the current Garda Commissioners and stated that the previous Commissioner had had the same salary. It did not include, as Deputy Kelly has said, details about the fact that the previous Garda Commissioner had been provided with accommodation in Phoenix Park by the Office of Public Works and that the rent on that had been paid by An Garda Síochána. The rent was €1,800 per month. While I am conscious that the personal tax details of individuals are confidential, I can confirm that the former Commissioner paid benefit-in-kind in respect of that arrangement.
The question Deputy Kelly is asking goes further than those he asked in September and October. It also seeks information on other financial costs to the State related to the appointments. In respect of that and on foot of a security assessment by An Garda Síochána, expenditure of €212,000 was incurred by the Garda Vote for security at the house. An annual monitoring charge of €2,500 was incurred for those security arrangements. Neither I nor my predecessors have commented on those security arrangements for serving Garda Commissioners.
In respect of the pension arrangements, the former Commissioner had the option to join the single public service pension scheme or receive a pension contribution, equivalent to 18.4% of the salary, into a pension scheme nominated by him. He waived that and, in fairness to him, that resulted in a considerable financial gain that he did not seek to accrue.
I thank the Minister for correcting the record. Only for my party colleague Deputy Eoghan Kenny, asking questions in the Committee of Public Accounts, we would not have found this out. I asked numerous questions about this. I spoke to the Garda Representative Association today and was told about so many gardaí who are resigning because they cannot afford to pay rent. The Minister is probably aware of this. Accommodation was provided to a Commissioner and the rent was not indexed. There was a considerable loss to the State where, basically, the rent was not being paid. This is the Accounting Officer for An Garda Síochána and it is low rent. Why was this arrangement not advertised as part of the package when we were looking for a Commissioner? Why was it not part of the job evaluation afterwards once it was awarded? Why did An Garda Síochána look for a house in 2017 prior to a Commissioner even being appointed? The head of the OPW at a meeting of the public accounts committee two weeks ago said it had actually been leased in 2017. Is that accurate? Will the Minister also confirm whether there were any other costs during those seven years in relation to this accommodation that were, in any way, met by the taxpayer?
Obviously, there were unusual aspects to the appointment of the previous Commissioner because he was from outside An Garda Síochána. He came externally and, obviously, issues arise in respect of that. However, I went back and looked at some of the coverage of the new Commissioner’s appointment. On 13 December 2017, The Irish Times reported, “The Government may pay the accommodation costs and education fees for dependent children if an international candidate is selected for the role of Garda Commissioner.” It was obviously envisaged at the time that if someone were going to be appointed to the job of Garda Commissioner from outside of Ireland, accommodation costs would have to be paid in respect of that individual. That situation arose. As I said, the information should have been provided to the Deputy in respect of the rent that was paid on the former Commissioner's behalf by An Garda Síochána. That should have been provided to the Deputy previously.
As for any other costs, aside from the payments the former Commissioner received which I have already provided to the Deputy, namely, the rent and property and the other financial costs associated with expenditure on doing up the house for security reasons, I am not aware of any other expenditure or extra package that was available to that Commissioner.
Why was this hidden for seven years? That is a real question. Second, other candidates were not aware of this accommodation scenario. Was it, therefore, a fair competition? This is not the first time that I have submitted questions to the Minister’s Department that have not been answered. When the Minister commenced in his role, I asked questions regarding holsters. The Minister wrote to me in that regard, but his response was inaccurate. On that occasion, I went to him and he wrote to me again but, again, the response was inaccurate and I had to tell him that. The Minister had to write to me three times on the one question. I am also the Member who had to tell the Minister about the arms in the boot of the car in the Evan Fitzgerald case. The Minister was not aware of it. He said a narrow interpretation of my parliamentary question was taken, but am I meant to basically second-guess all answers now as being narrow interpretations? How is it possible the Minister was not aware of this issue?
I have a deep concern about how policing is administered from the Minister’s Department, as opposed to other sections. I have said to him that any of three things could be happening regarding these questions because I cannot, as an Opposition spokesperson, continue to ask questions and receive narrow interpretations. It is either incompetence or a deliberate act or the people answering the questions genuinely do not know at this stage what is accurate or inaccurate. Any or all of them are deeply worrying for this House. Will the Minister guarantee that the answers he gives to questions from Opposition spokespersons will be accurate and he will not mislead the House in the future?
I am checking something that is of significance to the answer. I take answering questions in this House extremely seriously. Obviously, parliamentary questions come in. I was searching for a figure. Since I have been appointed as Minister, somewhere in the region of 3,500 to 4,000 parliamentary questions have come in and each one of them deserves a full and complete answer. I have instructed officials in my Department that when it comes to answering parliamentary questions, in cases where there can be either a broad or narrow interpretation, they are to adopt the broad interpretation in giving an answer.
When did the Minister tell them that?
I have been telling them that consistently. Part of the reason the Deputy received a previous answer by way of a letter from me a number of months ago is that I am insistent that information is given, not just to the Deputy but to all TDs, as thoroughly as possible.
I told the Minister it was inaccurate.
With regard to the Deputy’s point that this was hidden, having referred to what was in The Irish Times, I do not think it can be said it was hidden. Anyone applying-----
It was not public.
Anyone applying from outside of Ireland in 2017 would have been aware that one of the options or packages applied would be accommodation fees and education fees, if they arose.
The candidates were not aware of it.
75. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to provide an update on pathways to resettlement for Palestinians in Gaza who wish to come to Ireland. [68957/25]
View answerIt is a simple question. We have all seen the horror and genocide in Gaza over the past two years. Despite the so-called ceasefire, it continues. There was an attack on an apartment block last night, with children murdered again by Israel. We have all been contacted by people who have connections to Ireland in various ways and who are looking to get out of Gaza and become refugees to resettle in Ireland. It has been difficult to help those people. We have had sympathetic responses from the Minister and the various people we write to, but little practical help.
What is happening in Gaza is horrific. My Department continues to work closely with the Department of foreign affairs to ensure a co-ordinated national response to the situation. This includes working with Irish citizens and their families who may require visa assistance. Many visas have been granted to individuals coming from Gaza to Ireland.
In common with the position for all non-EU nationals, entry of Palestinian nationals is undertaken through the existing legal immigration pathways available. Palestinian nationals are visa required and must have a valid Irish visa before they seek to enter Ireland. Palestinian nationals can apply for a visa and permission to remain in Ireland for a variety of reasons, including employment, education or to join a family member in the State. That information is available on my Department’s website.
Visa applications are part of a screening process, designed to establish that a person has a legitimate reason to come to Ireland prior to travel. All such applications undergo this process. Separately, there is also the process of applying for visas since October 2023. I understand that the total number is 1,790, of which 1,068 have been granted. Visas are being granted in respect of Palestinians who seek to come to Ireland. Obviously, individuals who come to Ireland and claim international protection having emanated from Palestine will have their applications considered.
This is an international crisis in terms of trying to provide humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza. It is particularly difficult to get out of there, but Ireland plays its part in assisting people who want to leave, whether that is through immigration visas or someone making an application for international protection. Of course, that will be considered as well.
When Putin invaded Ukraine, the Irish Government was clear in its welcome to Ukrainians who were fleeing a brutal invasion and war. The Palestinian people for two years - longer in reality - have been facing absolute horror and they continue to face it. It is fine to say the information is all on the website, but the Minister and I know that many of these cases are quite complex. We write to the Minister and then we are told that, for example, guidance cannot be provided on visas applications that have not yet been submitted. In many cases, however, what these people need is assistance in making the best application they can. We need practical guidance on how to advise people of their visas options. We do not really have that knowledge.
Ideally we would have a dedicated contact point to assist with some of the more challenging cases that come to us so that people can make whatever application they need to make.
There is a significant difference between Gaza and Ukraine. People cannot leave Gaza but they can leave Ukraine. The European Union decided that the temporary protection directive would be commenced in respect of individuals emanating from Ukraine. We also want to be careful in that we do not want to facilitate an Israeli policy of seeking to compulsorily move people out of Palestinian territory.
The statistics confirm that a lot has been done. Looking at the total number of visa applications received from Palestinian nationals since October 2023, which is the past two years, 1,700 have applied and we have granted over 1,000. A lot of visas are being granted to individuals who apply for visas from Palestine. It probably does require a broader international humanitarian response. There was a broader European response with Syria and Afghanistan but there are very particular issues arising given the Israeli policy of precluding people from leaving Gaza that have an impact on policy developed by European countries.
I accept entirely the point about Israel's role, and the Jordanian authorities have also presented an obstacle to this. I have met with many Palestinians who are here who have family members, be it brothers and sisters or whatever, stuck in Gaza in this absolute horror. I agree that we do not want to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of Gaza but we also do not want to say "No" to people who want to come and join their families here. These people come to us, and I am sure the Minister has also heard many awful stories. These people have lost many members of their families, they are trying to get out and they are trying to join their families that are here. What should we tell them? At the moment we write to the Minister through parliamentary questions and we write to the immigration service, but we just get boilerplate answers that do not facilitate them. Can more practical assistance be provided to them with a point of contact in the Department in order to be able to give more assistance to people in those sort of circumstances?
The officials in my Department give a very sympathetic response and an efficient response. The numbers of applications for visas to come here are very significant and it takes a long time to process them. I do not know whether it is the case that priority is given to applicants from certain countries but the best way of dealing with it is to ensure that we improve and increase efficiency, which is something that can always be done.
In terms of what else is happening, the Irish Red Cross has offered to assist families in Ireland to apply for entry visas for their family members still in Gaza. Applications from eligible family members will be processed as swiftly as possible. This is what my officials say to me. I understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Irish embassies and consulates are limited to providing assistance to non-Irish citizens but they are actively exploring options for the provision of assistance to individuals in Gaza who wish to travel to Ireland. The Deputy will also be aware that we did a lot in terms of the medivac scheme. In September 2024, the Government approved Ireland's participation in the initiative to evacuate up to 36 children from Gaza. So far, 19 paediatric patients and members of their families have arrived.
76. Deputy Michael Murphy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will provide an update on the urgent discussions referenced in his written reply of 22 October 2025 regarding the planned discontinuation of coronial post mortems at University Hospital Waterford from 1 January 2026; the interim arrangements that have now been agreed for counties Waterford, Wexford, Kilkenny, Tipperary and Carlow; and the way in which his Department intends to ensure that bereaved families in the south east are not subjected to further delays or distress as a result of these changes. [68836/25]
View answerFollowing a recent meeting in University Hospital Waterford, UHW, attended by representatives and officials in my Department, I am advised that the pathologists employed at that location have indicated they are not available to carry out post mortems. On foot of this, my Department has been engaging with locum pathologists with a view to agreeing a solution to the situation in UHW from 1 January next. This approach is an unfortunate necessity to minimise any impact on bereaved family members who are engaging with the Coroner Service. A long-term sustainable solution is, nevertheless, required whereby locum pathologists are not relied upon to provide for the autopsy service and instead this service to the community is provided from within the pathology profession in Ireland generally.
I am afraid that I am also advised there are issues arising with respect to the performance of post mortems within the pathology profession generally. These include issues relating to training and recruitment as well as competing demands on pathologists in areas of diagnostic and research work. These are concerns that I am particularly worried about. There is an overlap here between my Department, which has responsibility for the Coroner Service and inquests, and the Minister for Health, Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill.
In April 2022, my Department established a standing committee on the provision of coroner-directed post mortem examination services, membership of which consists of representatives from the Department of Health, HSE, Office of the State Pathologist, Garda, Coroners Society, and other officials from the faculty of pathology in the Royal College of Physicians. While this committee is an important forum with appropriate membership to discuss issues in relation to the autopsy service, I am conscious that the situation in University Hospital Waterford has reached a critical juncture and an urgent solution is required. I will consider and continue to seek to engage on this issue but it is an issue over which I do not have full control in light of what pathologists are doing at present.
We are little more than 40 days from a cliff edge that the Minister has just described as a "critical juncture". From 1 January post mortems will no longer be carried out at UHW, a service that carries out 700 cases every year, which are often the most tragic and traumatic of deaths. Behind every one of these cases is a family in shock waiting for answers and waiting simply to lay a loved one to rest yet today, with the deadline fast approaching, there is no clarity on who will perform these examinations, where they will take place,or how families in counties Waterford, Wexford, Kilkenny, Carlow and Tipperary will be protected from delays that could last days or weeks. How will the Minister ensure that bereaved families in the south east are not plunged into a crisis of delays, distress and indignity from 1 January? Families deserve certainty, they deserve compassion and a plan, and they deserve it now.
I agree with the Deputy that it is a very traumatic experience for a family after there has been a death if they are told that there has to be a post mortem and then there can be a considerable wait prior to the funeral. I would not like to see Ireland develop in the same way as other countries where there is a significant delay between death and the funeral. One of the things we do very well in this country is death and it is not something that we want to change by having a big gap between death and a funeral.
Where a coroner deems a post mortem examination to be required, the coroner concerned will arrange the post mortem examination to be conducted as expeditiously as possible to ensure timely release of the remains to the next of kin. Depending on the circumstance of the death, a post mortem examination is carried out by a pathologist or, in State forensic cases, by the Office of the State Pathologist. I am in the process of seeking to review the law in respect of coroners. We need to examine the circumstances of when we order a post mortem. A post mortem is not needed in all the situations that we have them at present, particularly for elderly people, but that level of reform will not be in place by 1 January. I am concerned about what the Deputy has narrated as to the circumstances in University Hospital Waterford.
This is not an abstract policy issue; this is a human one. There are 700 cases every year. Every day that a family waits for a post mortem is a day they cannot hold a funeral, cannot begin the grieving process and cannot find closure. That is the reality that awaits hundreds of families across the south east if this service collapses on 1 January. Coroners, funeral directors and front-line responders still have no guidance. Families deserve reassurance that they will not be left waiting in deep distress for a service that is their right. I again ask the Minister, respectfully but firmly, to commit to guaranteeing that no family across the south east will face avoidable delays or uncertainty on the most difficult days of their lives. The people we represent in the south east deserve nothing less.
I thank the Deputy. I will give the statistics in respect of University Hospital Waterford. There are nine sanctioned consultant pathology posts of which eight are currently filled with one vacancy to be filled next year. Two posts were filled earlier this year and these appointments have not been made on the basis of the autopsy element being excluded. The remaining six pathologists have provided the autopsy service with three taking on the bulk of the workload. All six have confirmed that they will withdraw the service from 1 January. This is happening because consultants are withdrawing from a service. We need to look again at the contracts of individuals we are hiring as pathologists, so that there is a requirement that they perform post mortems and autopsies.
As the Deputy said, approximately 700 autopsies are conducted in University Hospital Waterford every year. The local pathologist services with which the Department is engaging will be contracted to provide a service from pathologists not already providing services in Ireland. In practice, this will be from the UK.
77. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he has initiated an immediate review of the Legal Aid Board’s capacity to administer the current civil legal aid scheme, as recommended by the review of civil legal aid; when he expects this review to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [68322/25]
View answerIt is now several months since the Minister received the report on the civil legal aid review, which in itself took three years to complete. Recommendation 22 of that report called for an immediate review of the Legal Aid Board's capacity to administer the current civil legal aid scheme. Will the Minister advise whether that has been commenced and when it is expected to be complete?
As the Deputy knows, the Legal Aid Board is the statutory body responsible for the provision of civil legal aid and advice to qualifying individuals. There are two parts to it, one is legal advice while the other is legal representation. Eligibility for the scheme is determined by reference to a financial assessment. The Legal Aid Board provides enormous assistance, particularly in the area of family law and, indeed, going back to what we were talking about earlier, international protection.
The Deputy is correct in that the former Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, was asked in June 2022 to conduct a review. Two reports actually were published in July 2025 which contained recommendations relating to the income threshold allowances and other financial aspects of the scheme. Since the overall available income eligibility threshold is influenced by the level of deductible allowances any changes must be considered in the round and the potential implications that such changes might have on the operation of the scheme. While the review highlights the need for comprehensive legal aid reform it also recognises that the current legal aid system must function effectively in the meantime. A critical aspect of any implementation will, therefore, be careful sequencing of reforms. However, I want the Deputy to know that in my Department, officials are considering the reports and are putting together proposals that will come to me for the purpose of implementing the recommendations.
The Deputy is correct in noting that the review group recognised that immediate action is required on the financial eligibility thresholds. It favoured an increase in the available income threshold from €18,000 to €23,500 as soon as possible. I want to see that achieved. I have instructed officials in my Department that I want to see it achieved. However, I have to inform the Deputy that I cannot just do that by the stroke of a pen. Once I do that, the demand for services is going to increase quite significantly. I need to ensure that I have the lawyers available to provide the increase in services. It is an important question and progress is being made on it.
Having heard the number of announcements the Minister has made over the past year without any changes happening, it concerns me when he has not even made an announcement in respect of this. That says to me that there is not an appreciation yet of the urgency here. There is a real crisis right now in accessing civil legal aid. That means there is a crisis in access to justice. The income limits, incredibly, have not changed since 2006. We are told by everybody involved that the fee structure means we do not have enough private lawyers carrying out legal aid work. That is creating problems in some parts of the country where there are basically no supports available, particularly for vulnerable people, including victims of domestic violence, who just cannot get the representation they need.
I am told by those who work in the area that the civil legal aid services are virtually on the brink of collapse, unless something is done urgently. I hear what the Minister is saying in terms of asking his officials to do this and wanting to do that. Will he give us a timeframe and clarity as to when we will see action in this area?
It is important that I got the report, read it and published it and that we tried to consider how we could implement it. I regret to say that it cannot happen overnight. The Deputy might think that can happen in government, that a Minister can say, "I am going to do this" and that it happens. It is important to announce what one's policy objective is, however. It is important for me to say that I want to see the recommendations in respect of the financial eligibility set out in the majority report implemented.
It is also important to emphasise that funding for legal aid and legal advice has increased significantly in recent years. In budget 2021, my Department's allocation to the free legal advice centres, FLAC, trebled from €98,000 to €294,000. It is important that I made an announcement this year which was followed up with actual money. The budget allocation for FLAC for 2026 increased significantly from €500,000 to €750,000. The increased funding will allow them to prioritise callers and assist people who are seeking legal aid and legal assistance. Work is, therefore, being done. I am not going to just give a timeline but I have instructed officials in my Department that I want to see the recommendations set out in Frank Clarke's report implemented in respect of financial eligibility.
For all the recommendations and the fact we need a whole overview of the civil legal aid scheme, two things need to be addressed, namely, income thresholds and fees. I do not believe that even the income thresholds suggested in the majority report are going to be sufficient to provide for access to the justice that I think the Minister will agree is integral. We need to get those two things sorted very quickly. While there has been no movement on that side, there is potentially a lot of additional pressure coming. I do not know whether the Minister followed the pre-legislative scrutiny discussions but people who work in this area have highlighted the burden that will be placed on them by the international protection Bill. Additional work is going to be put on the civil legal aid process. The Minister is adding to the pressures but not providing the solutions. What does the Minister intend to do to address the concerns around the international protection Bill? Crucially, when are we going to see the income thresholds and fees addressed?
In terms of international protection, Deputy Carthy is right about that. A significant number of people are seeking legal aid from the Legal Aid Board in respect of international protection. In fact, 11,689 applicants sought legal aid services in relation to international protection last year, which was an increase from nearly 10,000 the year before. That is hugely demanding for the Legal Aid Board. I am increasing the funding to the Legal Aid Board. The current budget allocation for the board for 2026 is €72 million, which is made up of €36.5 million for the pay budget and €35.6 million for the non-pay budget. When it comes to international protection and the enactment of the new international protection Bill, obviously there is a requirement within that, that we are going to provide legal counsel to individuals who are seeking assistance in respect of the international protection process. I will have to fund that. That funding will have to be made available. That will happen immediately, as of 12 June next year.
I am committed to changing the financial eligibility rules. However, I am not going to give a date here when I do not have certainty that it will be complied with by that date.
