Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
1. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of protected disclosures made by members and staff of An Garda Síochána, either directly to his Department or through internal Garda channels, and to Fiosrú, in each of the past five years; and the number upheld, dismissed or under examination. [70836/26]
View answerMy first question relates to the protected disclosures regime within An Garda Síochána and what have been fairly serious and damaging allegations made publicly, including in an "RTÉ Investigates" programme. Has the Minister carried out any assessment of whether the protected disclosures system is functioning? Could he outline how many such disclosures have been made by Garda members and staff over the past five years and how many of those have been upheld, dismissed or remain under consideration?
I thank the Deputy for his question. I, as Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, take extremely seriously any protected disclosures that are made to the justice sector. The Deputy’s question concerns members of An Garda Síochána and Garda staff. It is important to point out that a member of An Garda Síochána or a member of Garda staff has a number of options if he or she wants to make a protected disclosure. In the first instance, he or she can go to the internal protected disclosure unit within An Garda Síochána, which was enhanced in January 2025. If he or she does not want to do that, he or she can go to Fiosrú, the independent entity to which members of An Garda Síochána can also make protected disclosures. Third, he or she can go to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, OPDC. Finally, he or she can make a protected disclosure to a Minister. Obviously, as Deputy Carthy will be aware, it is not the function of Ministers or Members of the Oireachtas to investigate protected disclosures, but what we do want to ensure happens is that there is a sorting process whereby the protected disclosure is put into an area where it will be identified, reported on and concluded. As Deputy Carthy has indicated, the legislation places reporting obligations on all public bodies.
My Department received 34 protected disclosures from members and staff of An Garda Síochána from 2022 to 2026. In 2022, my Department received three protected disclosures. Following an amendment of the Protected Disclosures Act in 2022, the process changed slightly, which I will address in a moment. From 2023, 31 disclosures were received, four of which were returned by the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner for examination. The four disclosures returned by the OPDC have been referred to the appropriate statutory body under protected disclosures legislation. An Garda Síochána has received 46 protected disclosures in the period from 2022 to date in 2026. Fiosrú has received a total of 161 protected disclosures from 2022 to 2026. I have received a breakdown of these numbers, giving information about activity in each of the years.
The protected disclosures regime was put in place to ensure we would not have a recurrence of previous scandals within An Garda Síochána. We are aware that protected disclosures have been made regarding the mishandling of weapons, the misuse of State funds and defective Garda holsters. These are very serious issues, but almost as serious is the allegation that those who made disclosures are actually sidelined, obstructed and sometimes penalised for doing so. Questions arise in respect of how the Minister's Department and, in particular, a predecessor of his handled a protected disclosure that came before her in one instance. My supplementary question is very simple: would that happen again? Is that the route that the current Minister would follow in respect of a protected disclosure of that nature? Would it be referred back to An Garda Síochána, or would he instead seek an independent examination? It is important to clarify what the situation would be today if such a protected disclosure were made.
The Deputy is going from the general to the specific. I am cautious about speaking specifically about individual protected disclosures but, obviously, I have examined the files on what happened prior to my arrival in the Department. My view is that my predecessor, Deputy McEntee, behaved in an entirely appropriate manner and followed departmental advice in respect of issues to which the Deputy is referring. As he will be aware, on 27 February 2025 I referred issues highlighted in the protected disclosure under section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act to Fiosrú. I referred them for the purpose of having them investigated. I do not want to get into detail on the issues arising from that, but it is important, if somebody makes a protected disclosure and we have identified an entity to investigate it, that the individual engage with that entity so it can conduct and conclude its investigation.
This is important for public confidence. It is also important for gardaí, either now or in the future, who might be inclined to make a protected disclosure. I am not asking the Minister to make a judgment call on anything that was done previously. That will happen in time. What I am asking today is this: if a member of the Garda takes it upon himself or herself to make a protected disclosure to the Minister's Department, is there a likelihood, as has happened in the past, that it will be referred to An Garda Síochána in a manner in which he or she could be identified?
Is there a likelihood, as has happened in the past, that it will be reverted to An Garda Síochána in a manner in which he or she could be identified? I will not even use up my time because that question has to be answered today.
If a protected disclosure is made to the Department or to me as Minister for justice, I will do what then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, did in the first instance, which is refer it promptly to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner. That is the important thing to do because it is not for me as Minister to determine the process of investigation or how a disclosure should be investigated. It is important that protected disclosures get to the statutory entity that will look at who should investigate it.
There can be situations where there is communication between the OPDC and a Minister and issues will arise in respect of it. However, ultimately, what happened in this case was that the issues highlighted in the protected disclosure were referred to Fiosrú for independent investigation. It is important that the issues referred to Fiosrú for independent investigation were thoroughly investigated, but it takes two individuals for that to happen. There is the State entity receiving the information-----
With respect, the Minister is not answering the question.
-----and the person making the protected disclosure, who needs to engage with the investigator for the investigation to be concluded.
I am talking about how the Minister and his Department would deal with it. That is very disappointing.
2. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration further to his previous evidence to the Oireachtas justice committee concerning the number of providers arising from the cancellation of pre-contract accommodation agreements, and in light of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report identifying legal proceedings involving five providers, to account for the difference between those figures; the status of each of the remaining cases or agreements referred to by him; whether any additional settlements or payments have been made in respect of them; and the total financial exposure to the State arising from the cancellation of these agreements. [70965/26]
View answerI thank the Deputy for his question. At the outset, I will identify the savings that have been made as a result of decisions and policies put in place by the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and me. The Deputy will be aware that, in 2024, the expenditure on accommodation for Ukrainians by the Department was €1.16 billion. As a result of decisions made by the Minister of State and me, in next year's budget, we are looking for just €257 million in the budget for accommodation for Ukrainians.
In 2024, IPAS accommodation cost €1.005 billion and, in 2025, it rose to €1.27 billion. In 2026, the allocation was €1.1 billion and 2027 will see further reductions of more than €250 million on IPAS accommodation compared with the 2026 allocation. The decisions and policies being put in place by the Minister of State and me are saving the State money by reducing our expenditure.
The Deputy highlighted the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which referred to 14 IPAS accommodation contracts that were not proceeded with in 2025. I will not go into the detail about why they were not proceeded with, but I have said publicly previously that the main reason I did not proceed with them was a concern for public safety. The Deputy who represents areas will know public safety concerns were a real issue in 2024 and 2025. As has been indicated in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, proceedings were initiated against me by five providers. Others threatened to bring them and there is other litigation by a person who did not have a pre-contract accommodation agreement, but still says we should have proceeded with a commitment. The total value of those contracts was over €100 million and as has been indicated by the Comptroller and Auditor General, there have been settlements in respect of three of them and two cases are outstanding. I will not get into the detail of the amounts paid in those settlements because other cases are ongoing.
That leaves us in a difficult position because we are talking about a serious amount of public money, which has not been accounted for and we cannot find. We had a back and forth about this on 3 March in the justice committee. I asked the Minister a number of questions and some discrepancies remain in his answers. I asked at that meeting if there was a contingent liability and the Minister said he did not believe there was at that point. The Comptroller and Auditor General has expressly found that these agreements created significant contingent liabilities for the Exchequer. Will the Minister explain the discrepancy between what he told the committee on 3 March and what we discovered in the past week?
He also told the committee in March that there were potentially nine outstanding cases. The Comptroller and Auditor General has found five. The Minister referenced a further case in his contribution. Will he tell us about the rest?
It is also important to say that this is a significant amount of public money. The Minister has talked about savings to the State based on his decisions. What are the actual costs of those decisions and what are the real savings, as opposed to the nett, which the Minister has told us about?
When I am before the Oireachtas committee on justice, I am not before a court of law. The Deputy can ask me a question about anything and I will try to ensure I give him as much information as I can. What I said in the committee meeting was that I thought there were eight cases and certainly fewer than ten. I was not certain at the time. However, there are five cases. I am aware there is another case as well so it is around six cases. I do not think I should be enormously criticised for that. Otherwise, when I come before the committee, I will be extremely reticent and not try to be of assistance to the committee. I think the Deputy would prefer me to be as open as possible before committee.
I will not get into the settlement amounts. They have been categorised as accrued expenses and the Comptroller and Auditor General identified that in his report. Ultimately, though, this information will be available in the public domain, once the other cases have been resolved. It would be totally inappropriate for me to now say what was paid in other cases when individuals are suing me on the basis that they want me to open IPAS centres in certain areas, or if not, to pay them the money they would have made in respect of them. That is in effect what the cases are about. I am going to defend those cases.
What the Minister told the committee and the public, in his own words, is that there are be €120 million of savings. Clearly, that will not be the case. This comes back to a significant cost to the public, paid for by the Exchequer. While people may be suing the Minister, the costs are borne by the public and we have a right to know what those costs are, based on bad agreements, which we never went into.
It is important to say, the committee is absolutely not a court of law, but we as public representatives and spokespeople on justice have a right to scrutinise and ask questions and have an expectation of responses. I do not believe the responses the Minister gave to the committee captured what the Comptroller and Auditor General captured in his report last week. Was the information available at the time?
We are talking about an extraordinary waste of public money. We do not know the figure but we are talking about people being paid money for contracts that were never fulfilled. Do we want IPAS centres to be opened? Where there is a need, maybe, but we do not want public money going into the hands of people who did not provide a service and for us not to be able to establish the cost of that to the Exchequer.
Had I entered into the pre-contract agreements, the State would have been exposed to more than €100 million in payments. I did not go ahead with them because I had a fear at the time for public safety in respect of the issues. That is why I did not proceed with them. With the greatest respect, the consequence, although it might not have been the intention, of what I did was to save the State from having to spend more than €100 million. Individuals who claim they had pre-contract agreements wanted to enter into proceedings against the State. Some did while many did not. There are six cases, five of which are pre-contract and one other I am aware of. Others threatened to bring a case. The divergence between what I said in the committee and what is the situation is not that different. I said there were eight, maybe nine and certainly fewer than ten cases, so we are talking about a difference between eight and six. I will certainly be more reticent the next time I am before the committee. This is about ensuring public money is protected, and although it might not have been the intention, the effect of this decision was to save the State money.
3. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of appeals currently pending before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal. [70838/26]
View answerThe previous system has a backlog. What is the current backlog and, more important, what actions are the Minister and his Department taking to ensure the backlog is reduced, if not cleared, by the end of the year?
It is a central priority for me and for the Minister that Ireland's immigration system is firm, fair and effective. The number of international protection applications had been rising over recent years, reaching 18,500 in 2024. In 2025, application numbers fell by approximately one third. The number of applications received up to the end of August 2026 shows a further reduction compared with the same period in 2025. Over the same period, there has been a significant increase in investment in the international protection system. Combined with digitisation and process re-engineering, this has facilitated a major increase in processing capacity and demonstrates a strong commitment to reducing the number of cases on hand. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT, more than doubled the number of appeals closed from 3,100 in 2024 to 6,300 in 2025. As of 1 October 2026, IPAT had already closed 6,902 appeals this year, exceeding the total number of appeals completed in the whole of 2025. As of 1 October 2026, IPAT had 21,203 appeals on hand.
The increased resourcing of the international protection system has been particularly evident at IPAT in recent years, with the Tribunal's budget increasing by 95% between 2023 and 2025. The number of administrative staff at IPAT has increased from 37 at the beginning of 2023 to 88 currently. The number of whole-time members has increased from three at the beginning of 2025 to five currently while the number of part-time members has increased from 44 to 134 over the same period. In addition to measures aimed at improving processing more generally, an operational plan between Ireland and the European Union Agency for Asylum provides quasi-judicial support to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to assist decision-making and reduce the number of cases on hand.
We are told that there are 21,000 cases under appeal. This was entirely predictable. How did the Government allow this to happen? How did we get to these unprecedented levels? The answer is that the Department has prioritised PR over efficiency. I have been in radio studios with the Minister of State when he has spoken about the reduction in the timeframe for international protection applications but he never refers to the fact that the timeframe for appeals has actually been extended, leading us to now have 21,000 people awaiting appeals. I am sure there is a concern that, as the new Tribunal for Asylum and Returns Appeals essentially takes over the IPAS system, the IPAS system will be permitted to become a complete mess, if it is not already. Has the Department carried out any analysis of the cost impact of the lengthy appeals processes that are now in place? If so, what was the outcome?
As the Deputy will know, we have discussed this on many occasions in the past. The growth in appeals has been triggered by the fact that we have increased the processing time. Obviously, the number of appeals will grow as a result. As I indicated to the Deputy in my earlier reply, we have put in the resources. The Minister and I fully intend to ensure that system continues to work and that we successfully process those appeals in conjunction with what is now taking place under the pact. Under the pact, we have seen a significant reduction in processing times. Both of us and the staff involved, whose numbers have increased substantially, are firmly committed to getting through the backlog and processing these applications as quickly as possible.
I have a couple of supplementary questions. Does the Minister of State accept that delayed appeals mean increased costs as longer stays in IPAS accommodation result in higher costs for the taxpayer and longer periods of uncertainty? He has mentioned the figures for this year, including the completion of 6,900 appeals. I might have missed him saying it but is it not a fact that up to 30 staff were brought in from the European Union Agency for Asylum to assist in clearing that backlog? How many of those staff are still operating and supporting the Department? It is my understanding that those support arrangements are due to expire on 31 December 2027. What is the plan for after that? Does the Minister of State envisage the appeals backlog being cleared at that stage? It would be useful for the House to have answers to those questions.
Significant resources will be applied to the appeals process to reduce those numbers over the course of this year. It is very important to note that we have an ongoing relationship with the European agency in supporting our work. I accept the Deputy's point that, the longer people are in a process, the more it costs. That is the reason the Minister and I were absolutely focused on making the necessary changes to the process to deliver those faster processing times and the associated savings, as we are currently working to do. We are really beginning to see the impact of that. By the way, at every single opportunity, the Deputy stood up and opposed this process, saying it would not work. The reality is that, this year, we will probably see fewer than 10,000 people coming into our country. The figure was more than 20,000 just a few years ago. We are absolutely committed not only to successfully delivering the new system-----
The Minister of State blames the migration pact for those numbers increasing then.
-----but to ensuring that the people already in the system are processed as quickly as possible.
4. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the proposed process and timeline for the two new prisons in the Glen, Cork city. [70856/26]
View answerWill the Minister update the Dáil on the processed process and timelines for the development of two new prisons at the Glen, Cork city, on the site of the former Cork detention centre?
I thank the Deputy very much for his question. There is no plan for two prisons at the Glen in Cork city. There is a plan to extend the existing prison. We need greater prison capacity because we have overcrowding in our prisons. For the purposes of answering the Deputy's question thoroughly, I will give him the statistics from today. We have 5,444 people in custody in our prisons, meaning the system is at 114% of its capacity. There are 364 people in Cork Prison, which is regrettably at 120% of its capacity. As I am sure the Deputy will agree, it is clearly the case that we need greater capacity in our prison system.
The proposed project for the extension of the existing Cork Prison is part of the accelerated delivery programme for which I have managed to get the agreement of the Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Chambers. While it is still at an early planning stage, planning for the Cork Prison project is continuing. The new prison facility on the site of the old decommissioned Cork Prison will be a large extension of the function of the existing prison and will deliver capacity for approximately 100 women and 230 men as part of the accelerated prison infrastructure programme. I understand that people have been appointed to provide consultancy services in respect of demolition and that preparations are ongoing. The Prison Service is awaiting tender outcomes to inform a final decision. The target for project completion is 2031 but considerable progress is being made.
From speaking to individuals and councillors in Cork, I am aware that a proposal has been made in relation to the protected structure status of the old Cork Prison. That issue will obviously have to be given consideration as well.
I am glad the Minister has mentioned that issue. Cork City Council unanimously voted to have the old Cork Prison, which was known as the detention centre, declared a protected structure. I will give the Minister some of the feedback. Thomas Kent, the only 1916 leader to be executed outside of Dublin, was executed in that barracks. This is hallowed ground for republicans. After being arrested, Terence MacSwiney, the Lord Mayor of Cork, was locked up in that detention centre. He said that he would rather die than give up the Lord Mayor of Cork's chain. Multiple republicans have been executed and detained in the old Cork detention barracks. The Minister is now talking about demolishing it. This is Cork's Kilmainham. The republican history of this building is of vital importance to the people of Cork and to the people of this island because it is where republicans were held and executed for their beliefs.
I am not involved in the process that is ongoing in Cork City Council in terms of the register of protected structures. That is a matter for the councillors in Cork.
Will the Minister respect it?
It is a matter for the councillors in Cork city. The fact that it had not been put on the register of protected structures to date is instructive. It is obviously not incompatible for the history of Cork Prison to be preserved while ensuring that we have an extension of the prison to deal with the overcrowding that exists therein. For people in Cork who find themselves in prison, it is important that we have appropriate facilities in place.
I will engage and any decisions on the future of the old Cork Prison will be considered in light of the outcome of the relevant processes. As this project's planning process proceeds with the relevant authorities, it should be emphasised that there will be stakeholder engagement as part of the overall planning process. I know that Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan wants me to meet local groups on what is happening there and I will indeed do that. We do not need to turn this into an issue of crisis or conflict. I will listen to what local people have to say in respect of it and it is not incompatible with ensuring that we get a prison developed.
That makes no sense. How can we demolish a building and say that that is not incompatible? The Minister is talking about levelling the old Cork Prison. Imagine if someone came in here and said we would level Kilmainham Gaol. There would be uproar. Former Deputies Frank Aiken and Dr. Séamus Fitzgerald set out to identify Thomas Kent's cell and they succeeded and preserved his cell. This is hallowed ground for republicans all across this island but especially in Cork.
I will refresh the Minister's memory. Permission was granted for the demolition of O'Rahilly House. It was then added to the register of protected structures but was demolished anyway. As a result of that, the Minister said, "The act of bulldozing the building was completely against the historical interests of the people of Dublin and Ireland." He also said, "We need to go around the country and ask local authorities to identify those properties within their jurisdiction that are of historical importance, so we can preserve our vital revolutionary history." The Minister has one rule for O'Rahilly House. Is there another rule for republicans in the old Cork Prison? This should not be demolished. This should be saved, not just for Cork, but for our history. Can we not remember our history? For the Minister to demolish this is an act of destruction and is wrong.
I thank the Deputy for quoting me. Unfortunately, people did not listen to me at the time because had it been the case that people had put the old Cork Prison on the register of protected structures, the Deputy would not have to raise the issues we are raising here today. I will listen to local people on it. There is a process ongoing in Cork City Council. That process has to play out.
In terms of the heritage of Cork Prison that Deputy Gould has identified, I am surprised that it was not put on the register of protected structures if it is such hallowed ground as the Deputy has referred to. It was not put on it. I will take these factors into account. I want to ensure that we preserve our heritage, whether it is republican heritage or whatever it is, and the extraordinary history we have in this country. However, I also have to look to the future and what the needs of the people at present are. At present, having indicated at the outset that there is 120% capacity in Cork Prison, I have to do something to ensure we expand that. The prison-----
There are greenfield sites that the Government could start building on.
I have not finished yet.
There are greenfield sites the Government could build on.
The prison needs to be extended and there is an opportunity to do it promptly.
The Government has land it could build on.
