Vol. 1085 No. 6
10. Deputy Paula Butterly asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to outline the proposed changes to the legal aid scheme; how these proposals are consistent with the programme for Government commitment to restore legal fees; to clarify the extent to which relevant stakeholders were consulted prior to the publication of these proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35591/26]
I thank Deputy Butterly for her question. I fully recognise the crucial role played by legal practitioners in the effective administration of justice and, equally, that the criminal legal aid scheme is fundamental to upholding the constitutional and human right to a legal defence. The whole purpose of the reform of the criminal legal aid fee structure in the District Court is aimed primarily at improving efficiencies, speeding up case resolution and reducing unnecessary adjournments, while also ensuring fair remuneration for legal practitioners.
It is proposed to replace the current appearance-based sliding scale with a flat fee model. For cases in the District Court, regardless of the number of appearances, a generous set fee will be payable to solicitors. The proposed reform is intended to make the system work better for all concerned by making it more efficient, reducing unnecessary adjournments and speeding up case resolution. The new flat fee will be set at a rate that provides for full restoration of the so-called financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, cuts in line with the programme for Government commitment. I will, obviously, be reversing those cuts and restoring fees from 1 July as well.
My Department carried out a review of more than 350,000 District Court cases that took place during 2022 and 2023. A number of issues were identified during that review that I simply had to address. I am engaging extensively with relevant stakeholders, including legal professionals. Officials from my Department met with the Bar Council and the Law Society in May, July and October 2025, and again in March 2026. I offered further meetings and I will continue to engage with them.
I welcome the Minister’s comments. I want to frame this as an opportunity to get reform right, to strengthen our justice system and to ensure, as the Minister said, that it works fairly for everybody. Nobody disagrees that change is needed and we all recognise that there are inefficiencies in the current system. Reform, though, must be done carefully and in a way that protects the core principles of justice. I know the Minister agrees with this point.
The move towards a flat fee model in the District Court may appear at first glance to be a practical and streamlined solution. It does promise efficiency and simplicity. If we look at it a little closer, though, we begin to see the risks that come with oversimplifying something as complex as criminal justice. Not all cases are the same. Some are straightforward and can be resolved quickly, while others are complex, sensitive and require significant preparation, repeated engagements and time in court. Treating those different cases as though they are identical does not create efficiency but an imbalance.
I also have to take into account that the number of criminal cases in the District Court has decreased. Notwithstanding that, however, expenditure on criminal legal aid in the District Court has nearly doubled, from €19 million in 2015 to €37 million in 2024, despite the number of cases having decreased.
The review I looked at identified a series of structural issues in the administration of justice in the criminal legal aid scheme. For example, payment per appearance incentivises additional adjournments. I think this is just clearly the case. If we compare cases in the District Court that are not funded by criminal legal aid to those that are, we can see that there are many more adjournments in the latter context. Additionally, multiple certificates granted for related cases increase costs and complexity, multiple solicitors are assigned in the same firm for related charges and a highly complex payment processing system creates a significant administrative burden. I would not introduce this scheme if I thought it was going to undermine the rights of individuals to a fair defence.
I repeat that all of us recognise the inefficiencies that do exist and that there is scope there for reform. However, let me guide the Minister toward a practical example. In County Louth, my constituency, we have the drug treatment court, which has proved to be a very effective and successful operation for those people appearing before the judges. It involves statutory and non-statutory stakeholders, and the model of flat fee-only appearances could have a detrimental effect on the drug treatment court because it is very complex. It is about reforming and giving a person another opportunity to live a very successful life, and the flat fee-only appearance rule would possibly jeopardise the situation. If we get the balance wrong, there will be consequences for the person before the courts and the hard-fought outcome hoped for may not materialise. We also risk discouraging solicitors from taking on legal aid work and creating gaps in access representation.
I thank the Deputy.
Will the Minister have further engagement with the key stakeholders and take on board their concerns before he brings forward these proposals?
I have had engagement with the representative associations. In fact, I wrote to them previously saying I was available to meet again if they wished to do so. I have no doubt that I will hear back from them.
In terms of what the Deputy said about the provision of legal aid, it is a very competitive business among solicitors. I believe we are not going to lose that level of competition because of the reform I am proposing.
The Deputy gave an example of what happens in the drug treatment court, but the report I considered from the Department identified that the weighted average of the number of appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five, while the weighted average of the number of appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just over three. Something is happening, therefore, when cases with criminal legal aid are having many more adjournments than is the case with those that do not. I think this proposal will make the system much more efficient and help the administration of justice.
8. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration considering the rights of victims and survivors of sexual offences, if he will consider a ban on the use of counselling records as evidence in criminal trials; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35579/26]
As the Minister knows, the issue of counselling notes being used in gender-based violence trials has been a massive issue for survivors. Even the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, GREVIO, has talked about this being an instrument of secondary victimisation. The Minister was forced to amend his own amendments to legislation in this regard because he came back with something that just was not satisfactory. I have only caught sight of the amendments he is proposing, which will be a hearing on a real risk of an unfair trial in the interests of justice or where it is relevant to an issue in a trial. There will still be the chilling effect for survivors and raw records being passed on to judges and defence teams.
I thank the Deputy very much for her question. I am committed to trying to ensure that the situation that operates at present, where counselling notes are routinely provided to the legal team of an accused, comes to an end. I brought forward proposals to the version of the miscellaneous provisions Bill on Second Stage and I am going to come forward with even further amendments in terms of that legislation. I have listened to what people in this House and some of the important stakeholders have said, and I am going to introduce a statutory form of non-disclosure for counselling notes.
The Deputy’s question asks that I should ban them completely.
In listening to people, be they in this House or stakeholders, I also have to listen to the Attorney General and the advice I have received. The unambiguous advice I have received from the Attorney General and the advice that important stakeholders in this area have received is that a total ban on counselling notes would be unconstitutional. It would be very detrimental to the interests of survivors of sexual abuse if I was to introduce legislation that got me some plaudits here but was struck down by the courts within a year as being unconstitutional, so I will not do that. However, the proposals I am bringing forward will create a statutory form of privilege that will ensure that the only time information or documentation evidencing a counselling note is provided is if that note evidences something that is in the interests of justice and without it, there would be an unfair trial. I cannot categorise a group of evidence and say we can never look at that, which is what a total ban would effectively do. That would be unconstitutional. What I am introducing is that there will have to be a hearing and a judge will have to look at it. The only time that information will be disclosed is if a judge, having looked at it, says that is relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
I appreciate that the Minister had to go further than he was originally intending. He says he listened but he did not listen, for example, to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. I spoke to its representatives yesterday and cannot believe that the Minister had not even met them before tabling his amendments. This is the front-line organisation dealing with survivors and it did a huge amount of work and put forward a very detailed proposal. In that context, I cannot accept the suggestion that the Minister listened.
The Minister says that it would be unconstitutional but we could argue that point because there are other constitutional rights that do not seem to be taken into consideration here, such as the right to privacy, to healthcare and so on. If our Constitution allows the damaging and harming of survivors, then there is something wrong and the Minister should come forward with a proposal for a referendum. In Tasmania, for example, they have managed to outlaw this practice and notes can only be handed over with the person's consent. This takes into account the fact that some people may want to use their counselling notes. It can be done if there is a will. What the Minister is bringing in is similar to what is in Canada and it has not really reduced requests for access to counselling notes.
What I have to do here and what the House has to do, ultimately, is weigh up an area where there are conflicting rights. On the one hand, there is the right to privacy, which is an absolutely essential right, and on the other hand there is the right to a fair trial, which is also an essential right. Neither right is absolute but I have to ensure that I balance both of them. The legislation I am bringing forward and the amendments I have tabled will significantly tilt in favour of the right to privacy but it cannot make it absolute.
I hear what the Deputy is saying with regard to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. It sent a submission to me, which I did consider. I have engaged with people across the board but, ultimately, I have to do what I believe is in the best interests of the public and survivors while also recognising that there has to be protection for a fair trial. The proposals I am bringing forward will achieve that and, if this legislation is enacted, we will be in a position a year or two later where it will be much more seldom that counselling notes are disclosed in criminal trials.
The right to a fair trial includes the complainant as well. Does the Minister agree? I am assuming he does but that is never factored in. Gender-based violence is becoming a completely unpunished offence in this and other countries. That is the reality. Only 5% of people disclose to anyone or report it to gardaí. Why does the Minister think that is the case? It is because things like this remain on the books and are routinely used in our courts.
The Minister said he listened but one would think he would at least meet the group to discuss its proposal, into which it put a lot of work. Has he listened, for example, to the therapist who had her front door knocked on by four gardaí looking for counselling notes? How is this in any way just? The Minister used the phrase "best interests" of survivors. He could have laid down a much higher bar than he did. For example, it is very broad to say "interests of justice" or "an issue in a trial". That can be interpreted in so many ways and it is not dealing with the central issue, which is that people are having to choose between therapy and a trial. Nothing is going to change with this proposal.
I disagree with the Deputy when she says that sexual offences are unpunished offences.
They are.
That is not correct.
Only 5% report.
Every day of the week we read in our newspapers about people - men - being convicted of rape and serious sexual offences. That is happening consistently within the criminal justice system. Part of the consequence of that is that it should provide, and I hope it does, strength to other survivors and victims of sexual offences to know that if they come forward, they will get justice. I also know that An Garda Síochána is much more effective now in dealing with these complaints than it was ten or 15 years ago.
My job is to ensure that I provide as much support as possible for individuals to travel through the criminal justice process. I also have to take into account, however, the requirements of a fair trial. I agree that a trial requires consideration of interests. Of course, the interests of survivors, victims or complainants in a trial must be prioritised but I cannot completely negate somebody who is being accused. If there was a person whose political views Deputy Coppinger agreed with-----
The Minister obviously does not understand the importance of this issue.
-----who was being prosecuted, she would be the first to criticise conditions that made a fair trial not possible.
9. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will clarify that an applicant for naturalisation who has changed their name through a gender recognition certificate does not need to show use of that new name for two years in order to have the name appear on the certificate of naturalisation; if he will ensure the naturalisation process is informed by the Gender Recognition Act 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35578/26]
I want to raise a flaw or a gap in the naturalisation process in the context of the Gender Recognition Act. I have been contacted by a constituent who last year changed their gender and name through the Gender Recognition Act. That process allows a person not just to register a change of gender but also to alter their name. They are a citizen of another EU state, working and living in Ireland. They applied for naturalisation but cannot progress that application because of the rule that people must be using a name for two years.
I thank the Deputy for her question and would appreciate it if she would send on the details of the case because I was not able to identify the issues on the basis of the question. It is a complicated issue and I just want to give the Deputy the following reply.
Under the Irish legal system, a person’s name is the name by which they are known or which they commonly use. For most people, evidence of their name is most commonly provided and accepted in the form of a birth certificate, which, for example, may be supported by a marriage certificate in the case of a change of name on marriage. The name by which a person is known by is acquired through use and repute. Where a person seeks to use a different name acquired through use and repute in the naturalisation process, my Department requires evidence that they have been using that new name for a period of at least two years. I am sure the Deputy can appreciate that establishing a person's identity is a critical part of the immigration and naturalisation process.
I want to stress that this two-year requirement is not contained in, and does not arise from, the Gender Recognition Act 2015. Rather, it reflects a broader administrative practice. It is important that a person seeking naturalisation is properly identified so that, among other things, appropriate checks can be undertaken. It is also important in establishing their new status as a naturalised citizen that it is done in a name that they are known as. Use and repute is a critical, non-statutory method for proving identity, particularly when a person changes their name outside of marriage or civil partnership. It acts as a bridge between social identity - who people know a person as - and legal identity - who a person’s documents say they are. When proving identity at any stage of the naturalisation process, the citizenship division in my Department requires evidence that a name has been used consistently. This is the bedrock of proving a person’s identity while also helping to protect against identity fraud. I understand that some other Departments are currently reviewing their requirements for use and repute for two years where a person is in possession of a gender recognition certificate.
Again, if the Deputy sends on the details to me, at least I will be able to consider the matter in the context of what has actually happened.
The problem is that the use and repute clause is not applied for a marriage certificate, for example. If somebody submits a marriage certificate saying they have now changed their name, it is recognised immediately. So, it can be done but it is not being done in the case of a gender recognition certificate. When people obtain a gender recognition certificate, it is assumed that it can be used straight away. There is nothing said about a period of time that must elapse first. This needs to be looked at in the naturalisation process because my constituent has been forced to cancel their application for citizenship and has lost their fee. They do not want to carry on with obtaining an important State document with their old or so-called dead name. It will be another year before they can have a passport in their new name. This has serious implications for transgender people who are constantly having to explain their gender when they interact with the State, services and so on.
It causes difficulty as well when travelling. This is something the Minister needs to look at.
If the Deputy sends me the details, I will be able to look at the issue. The naturalisation process is different from the process, say, for obtaining a marriage certificate. At the heart of naturalisation is the need for the Department to be able to identify the person who is seeking Irish citizenship. It is an essential part of the naturalisation process that people in my Department go back and examine the past of the individual seeking Irish citizenship to ensure that what he or she is saying is correct. There are factors that could preclude a person from achieving Irish citizenship. Let us remember Irish citizenship is not a right but a privilege we give to individuals based upon an application process.
On the issue the Deputy raised, it is important to emphasise there is nothing in the Gender Recognition Act that undermines or affects her constituent. The issue is the necessity for identification. If she sends me the application details, I will have them considered. Ultimately, even if the matter cannot be resolved, her constituent will be able to apply in a year.
I accept what the Minister is saying about needing to check out a person's past. I have helped many people with their naturalisation applications. However, if a person has been investigated and has demonstrated a change in gender and name under the Gender Recognition Act, surely the process is simple enough. It should not take two years. There is an anomaly and it should be reviewed. The Gender Recognition Act was meant to be reviewed in any case to also allow for recognition of non-binary status. That change was recommended and indicated. This is something that will impinge on many people's lives. As far as I know, we still recognise trans people in this country. We should allow them, if they are naturalised, to move to their new name as quickly as possible.
The use and repute test is used across the board in the Department. It is not targeting any particular group of individuals. It is not too much to expect, when it comes to assessing identification, that people are able to satisfy the Department that their name is the name they have used for two years and how they have been known by repute for the same period. As I said, I will have a look at this case if the Deputy sends me the information in respect of it.
7. Deputy Paula Butterly asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the current status of funding allocated for essential repair and flood remediation works at Drogheda Courthouse following the recent flooding that resulted in the transfer of District Court sittings to Dundalk Courthouse in January 2025; the timeframe for completion of those works; the total amount of capital funding allocated for courthouse repair, maintenance and flood prevention works nationally in 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35785/26]
I apologise for the confusion I caused earlier. Will the Minister outline the current status of funding allocated for essential repairs and remedial works at Drogheda Courthouse following the flooding that resulted in the transfer of District Court sittings to Dundalk Courthouse in January 2025? Will he also indicate the timeframe for the completion of those works, as well as the total amount of capital funding allocated for courthouse repair, maintenance and works nationally in 2025?
I acknowledge this is an issue of concern to the Deputy. I understand the flooding that occurred at Drogheda Courthouse on 13 January 2025 resulted from burst pipes. Following the completion of initial repair works, a walk-through inspection of the facility was carried out during the week commencing 20 January 2025. It was agreed at the time that the facility could reopen to the public on 28 January, noting that certain areas, including courtroom 1, would remain unavailable. Further works to courtroom 1 were completed in April 2025 and it became fully operational on 2 May 2025. That marked the completion of all repair works.
As the Deputy is aware, Drogheda Courthouse is part of a seven-courthouse public private partnership, PPP, bundle, which was delivered under a 25-year concession period. Drogheda Courthouse was the first of the projects to be handed over in June 2017 on a landmark town centre site beside the River Boyne. The total cost of the PPP contract covers the design, construction, financing and, importantly, maintenance and repair of the facility. Those costs are met through a single annual unitary charge, which represents a composite payment for all services provided under the contract. It should be noted that the risk and costs of the repairs fell under the ownership of the PPP company, not the Courts Service. The entity that paid for the repair works was not the State but the PPP company.
The total capital funding allocated for courthouse capital works in 2025 amounted to €9.74 million. The total cost of the PPP contract is quite significant but, as I said, the State did not have to pay for it. I cannot give the Deputy an exact detailed breakdown of the charge because it is commercially sensitive and is protected under the terms of the PPP contract.
I thank the Minister for that update. I was aware that courtroom 1 had opened. As the Minister noted, Drogheda Courthouse is a modern building that opened in 2017 as part of a €9 million investment designed to serve the growing and busy county of Louth. Yet, in the space of 12 months, we have seen repeated problems, most recently with courtroom 1 as a result of burst pipes in the roof. However, that is not the only issue. Anyone going into Drogheda Courthouse today or tomorrow will still see buckets around the place and on the stairs. For this to be happening in such a modern building, the question must be asked whether we are investing in and building these structures properly. The investment in our courts is really important. How can we avoid having buckets lying around a modern facility?
I am disappointed to hear buckets are being used in Drogheda Courthouse. As already noted, it was built in 2017 on a landmark town centre site. If there are defects in the building, the owner or the constructor is liable for those defects. There is a recognition that any defects in the building must be fixed by the PPP company. It has done that and has paid for those works. If there are ongoing difficulties in respect of the courthouse, the company will have to meet that liability as well.
It is essential we have courthouses that are adequate and appropriate. That is necessary not for the benefit of judges or lawyers but for the benefit of people who are going through the administration of justice and seeking access to justice. I will ask my officials and the Courts Service about Drogheda Courthouse. Any issues with it need to be resolved immediately and the entity responsible for paying for that is the company that built it and from which the State is contracting it.
In County Louth, we have the good fortune of also having Dundalk Courthouse, which is an amazing facility that is potentially underused at times. Many of my former colleagues tell me the courthouses at a regional level across the country are in dire need of repair. Will the Minister outline the programme of repair and maintenance at a national level and how quickly those works can be facilitated?
The courthouses of Ireland are very interesting buildings. Last Friday, I was in the courthouse in Armagh, which is very similar to the other courthouses we inherited from the British around the country. Some of them, because of their antiquity, are in need of significant work, but their antiquity means most are protected structures. I know Dundalk Courthouse well. It is a very fine building in the centre of the town. It has a wonderful location in terms of generating business for the surrounding community.
I have funding within the national development plan for the construction of new courthouses. It is an important part of my programme to ensure Courts Service facilities around the country are suitable. We have built many fine new courthouses over the years. I think particularly of Castlebar, which has a very fine new courthouse. Many of those buildings around the country were designed very effectively. There is money there to build them but when it comes to ancient buildings, there are issues in terms of what can arise.
12. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to provide an update on his Department's engagement with the Law Society of Ireland and other stakeholders ahead of the changes to the operation of legal aid at the District Court; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34694/26]
Will the Minister outline his or his Department's engagement with the Law Society of Ireland and other stakeholders in advance of the changes to the legal aid system operating in the District Court?
I am told by many there is unease in relation to the possibility of an exodus of those who engage in the system. We want to see it streamlined and efficient and getting the best bang for our buck but we do not want to see backlogged courts and it causing more hassle than it needs to.
I thank Deputy Ó Murchú for his question. I certainly do not believe that there will be an exodus of our criminal law practitioners from the legal aid sphere as a result of the reforms I am introducing. As I said earlier, it is a very competitive sector. There are highly efficient and professional solicitors providing services to persons accused of criminal offences. I believe that will continue. I would not propose the reforms if I thought it would not.
I looked at the criminal legal aid scheme and I am fully aware of the importance of the scheme in terms of protecting the right to a fair trial and ensuring individuals accused of serious offences have adequate protection. My proposed reform in the District Court is not intended to reduce the cost to the State in providing criminal legal aid. Instead, it is about improving efficiencies and reducing unnecessary adjournments while still ensuring fair and sustainable remuneration for legal practitioners. As the Deputy knows, it is proposed to replace the current appearance-based sliding scale with a flat fee model for cases in the District Court, regardless of the number of appearances. A set generous fee higher than the fee at present will be payable to solicitors. The new flat fee will be set at a rate that provides for full restoration of the FEMPI cuts in line with the programme for Government commitment.
I have to point out that part of the reason for my reform is because of a review conducted by my Department in respect of cases conducted in the District Court. On foot of that review, it was apparent to me that reform was required. It is also apparent that if we pay somebody per appearance, it is going to incentivise additional adjournments. Research was done that established that in cases where there was criminal legal aid, there would be five appearances where there was criminal legal aid and three where there was not.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I understand the argument the Minister is making. It is my understanding there are a considerable number of adjournments on the basis of the gardaí and the State itself. The fear is that we will have a number of solicitors who are not willing to engage with this system. We will obviously have those who need representation but beyond that, I am told that in many cases involving legal aid, and when the solicitor is given a sufficient amount of time, due diligence is done and this facilitates, when it makes best sense, guilty pleas or whatever, so we are not necessarily clogging up the courts more than they need to be. The Law Society and others will accept there should be nothing that gives an incentive in relation to solicitors demanding more adjournments on the basis of pay but I am told it generally happens on the basis of the State, whether that is due diligence not being done beforehand, issues in relation to evidence, etc. I ask the Minister about his engagement with the Law Society and the other stakeholders who need this to work.
There are obviously a variety of reasons for adjournments of a criminal trial in the District Court. What is concerning me is the fact that if we have short adjournments, they have a very negative impact on the efficiency of the system because cases are listed every two weeks, every three weeks or however long it is on a continuing basis. If we are paying a person per the number of appearances, that is going to incentivise the adjournment. These reforms will have a positive impact because when it comes to applications for adjournments, practitioners will take into account whether or not they are going to be ready for the hearing or the next stage of the trial at the adjourned date proposed. People will be much more careful about agreeing to an adjourned date in circumstances where they do not think they will be ready on that date. There is a benefit to it.
In terms of engagement, I have had very good engagement with the Bar Council and the Law Society. I have received submissions from them and offered to meet them again. I will happily meet them again.
I welcome that the Minister will meet them again, particularly as the Law Society and many of its members, some of whom have contacted me, have stated they are incredibly worried about this. I agree with the Minister that we all want to see our courts system work as efficiently as possible. We have all seen that for too long justice has been denied. We have all seen cases which have taken an extraordinary length of time to make their way through the District and Circuit Courts. However, in a previous answer, the Minister said his Department reviewed more than 350,000 District Court cases, which took place between 2022 and 2023. I would like to know the detail and how that was done because that would seem like a significant amount of work to do. I call on the Minister to meet again with the Law Society. We all want a system that works. We do not want to see courts more backlogged than they are.
That is correct. There was a detailed review carried out by my Department and what it established was that there were a number of structural issues which needed to be addressed: first, payment per appearance incentives adjournments; second, multiple certificates were granted for related cases which will increase costs and complexity; third, multiple solicitors assigned in the same firm for related charges; and, fourth, a highly-complex payment processing system creating a significant administrative burden. The review found that cases with criminal legal aid take an average of 313 calendar days to complete compared to 133 days for cases without. The weighted average appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five, while the weighted average appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just three. While cases with criminal legal aid take significantly longer than those without, the outcomes are similar. This is a system that needs to be reformed.
14. Deputy Joe Cooney asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the Garda resources that have been allocated to County Clare in respect of major events scheduled for 2026, including a tournament (details supplied); whether the staffing required for such events is being drawn from within the existing Clare-Tipperary division complement or from other divisions; the steps being taken to ensure that high-visibility community policing in County Clare is not diminished during periods of major event deployment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35405/26]
I raise the issue of resourcing gardaí in County Clare for the Irish Open in September. This is a huge event coming to County Clare and it will bring tens of thousands of visitors to our county. I ask the Minister what additional resources both human and financial will be made available by his department to Clare Garda division for this event.
I thank the Deputy for his question. The organisation and deployment of policing resources for major sporting events is an operational matter for the Garda Commissioner and, indeed, local Garda management. As Ministers, we have no role as such in operational decisions, however, I am assured that the resourcing of policing requirements for high-profile sporting events is fully considered within the overall context of the needs of the relevant Garda division. The Garda Commissioner keeps the distribution of resources under continual review and we engage regularly with him to ensure An Garda Síochána has the resources it needs to keep our communities safe. The Commissioner is committed to ensuring the policing needs of the Clare-Tipperary division are fully attended to, notwithstanding the obvious demands the hosting of the event referred to by the Deputy will place on An Garda Síochána.
As the Deputy knows, An Garda Síochána has extensive expertise in policing major sporting events, including previous large-scale sporting tournaments. I am sure he recalls the Irish Open was played in Lahinch in County Clare in 2019. There was a significant Garda presence and operation which helped the tournament run quite successfully and smoothly.
An Garda Síochána has a proven track record of successfully policing multiple large events on the same day. We see that particularly with GAA events, which take place in multiple locations around our country on the same day and, indeed, at the same time. Garda management will, as always, undertake a thorough risk assessment and put in place an appropriate policing plan tailored to the specific event, ensuring public safety and the security of all attendees.
I am satisfied An Garda Síochána has the necessary expertise, training and resources to discharge its duties in relation to the event the Deputy referred to, which is to be held in the Doonbeg golf resort in September of this year.
I thank the Minister of State. I congratulate everyone who has helped to bring this event to County Clare. It will provide a major boost to the local economy, particularly during the shoulder season of the year, but it will also place additional pressure on Garda resources, especially in west Clare. Gardaí will have to be reassigned from other duties, including community policing, to deal with crowd management, traffic and public safety. That will have an impact on communities across Clare that would normally rely on those Garda resources. Can the Minister of State assure me that this event will not affect Garda resources allocated to County Clare in 2026? Will the organisers make a financial contribution towards policing and public services? Will the overall cost to the State for this event be fully covered?
I previously mentioned that the previous Irish open which was staged in Lahinch, County Clare, in 2019 was a successful event. I also put on the record that in 2019, President Trump visited Clare, in 2023, President Biden visited Clare and President Zelenskyy visited there last December. Those visits were all successfully policed and properly and appropriately resourced by An Garda Síochána at the time. The expertise and knowledge are in the organisation.
The Deputy asked about the recovery of charges relating to the policing of non-public duty events. The recent report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the 2023 appropriation accounts for Vote 20 - An Garda Síochána examined the cost of non-policing events. Ensuring value for money is a priority for the Department and the agencies under its remit. The Garda Commissioner is the Accounting Officer.
There is also a possibility of a visit this time by President Trump who owns Doonbeg golf club. We saw in previous visits the scale of the operation required for a presidential visit, including road closures, major security arrangements, co-ordination with the US Secret Service and the redeployment of Garda personnel from across the region. An Garda Síochána in Clare simply cannot do this with existing resources without causing serious disruption to normal policing services across the county. Rural communities in Clare, where there are already concerns about response times and Garda visibility, would feel the impact sharply. Can the Minister of State give an assurance that if President Trump were to visit Clare, none of the cost of the resource burden would fall on the existing Garda allocation for the county? Does the State carry the full cost of such a visit, even where it involves a privately owned business such as Doonbeg golf club? Communities across west Clare should not lose out on day-to-day Garda services because of a high-profile international visit.
I reiterate that President Trump, in 2019, and President Biden both visited County Clare and the visits were policed accordingly. In the Clare-Tipperary division, which the Deputy knows well, 661 gardaí were assigned to that division as of March 2026, which is a significant body of people. Every Garda division wants more and has its hand up for more gardaí to be allocated to it.
The Deputy is concerned about the resourcing of the Clare-Tipperary division being left exposed while the policing of this event takes place. When major events are policed, gardaí from neighbouring districts are asked to attend and are pulled into the adjoining district to police them. It will not be the case that everyone in the Clare-Tipperary division will be sucked over to Doonbeg to police that event.
15. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will consider changes in legislation in relation to the use of character references in sentencing hearings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35581/26]
My question relates to character references. We have seen a spate of them recently from former TDs, many of whom seem to be hanging around the Fianna Fáil party. They do not have any understanding of how damaging this is to the victims of these crimes. Why are we still allowing character references from people who have absolutely no expertise in anything to do with any of these crimes? It is an outrage.
I thank Deputy Coppinger for her question. As she will be aware, the law was recently changed in this area in respect of sexual offences. Under section 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Trafficking) Act 2024, it is now the case that people who want to give character evidence about a person convicted of a sexual offence have to do so either by affidavit or in the witness box. It has to be done on oath or affirmation. That is a positive change in the law.
Deputy Coppinger's question seems to ask why this is ever necessary. As I said previously, sentencing is one of the most complex aspects of a judge's function. The judge has to deal with the nature of the offence and its impact on the victim when determining the sentence. However, the judge is also sentencing the offender. It will be the case that the judge needs to know something about the offender for the purpose of imposing a sentence. For instance, I am sure if a person were convicted of causing criminal damage to an American plane in Shannon, Deputy Coppinger would believe that person should be entitled to have some character evidence adduced for them at the trial. We can never say we should rule out any form of character evidence because it is essential for a judge to understand the offender in order to impose a sentence.
However, certainly in respect of sexual offences, including rape, people who want to give character evidence have to do so by going into the witness box or by affidavit. There is a lot to be said for extending that to other serious offences.
We are not talking about writing a reference for a mother who took a packet of nappies because she is living in poverty. In most cases, these references are from relatives or former school principals who knew the offender 20 years ago, or from a GAA football manager or whoever. In the case of child sexual abuse and gender-based violence, they should be banned entirely because the people who carry out such offences are absolute master manipulators. They have groomed people, including adults and children, and fooled relatives. We have seen cases of femicide where the perpetrator fooled the entire family of the victim. No solitary thing can be believed about these people. No one knows what they have done in private, behind closed doors, in such a personal crime as child sexual abuse or gender-based violence. In a trial relating to two sisters, the last word was given to references for their brother who had already been found guilty of abusing them from relatives of the brother who knew nothing about him. The references need to go. They are very confusing and damaging.
I agree with Deputy Coppinger when she says abusers and people responsible for gender-based violence are manipulative. I met Naomi Long last Friday. She is the justice minister for Northern Ireland. She asked me to read the report about Katie Simpson's murder. I read it. It is a harrowing example of someone - the person responsible for her murder - who fooled the PSNI. It showed the level of manipulation that can exist.
Deputy Coppinger suggested we simply ban any form of evidence being given in respect of an offender. That would be problematic. As I said, an important part of a judge's function is to understand an offender. There will be varying degrees of manipulative or malign offenders. There will be people who deserve much longer sentences than others and for there to be some graded assessment by a court, it needs to know something about the offender. The alternative is to have mandatory sentences, as we do for murder, so the judge does not exercise any discretion.
I was particularly talking about sexual and gender-based violence because it is a particular type of personal crime. These people fool judges as well. Let us be frank. Judges are not exactly top of the class.
These references are designed to get people off. In the case of the two women I spoke to - and I know them - there were suspended sentences after character references were submitted.
I want to ask about this oath of affirmation. Where was the oath of affirmation for the person standing in the witness box when Jim Glennon, a former TD and a personal friend of the Minister, wrote a character reference for a person who had images of child sexual abuse? We all had to wait a week or so to find out who the former TD was. He did not stand up in the witness box, so it does not seem like the oath is being applied. Former Deputy Marc MacSharry wrote a reference for a property developer who terrorised children. This seems to be a plague within Fianna Fáil. A former Ceann Comhairle wrote a horrific reference as well and has never apologised to the victims, despite being asked to do so.
The Deputy may want to live in a country where guilt by association operates, but, fortunately, we do not live in such a country. If somebody the Deputy knew did something inappropriate or improper-----
They have.
-----I would not hold her responsible for it.
I am not.
We do not live in a country where there is guilt by association. To answer the question, the reason persons did not get into the witness box in the past is because the law has now been changed. If you want to give character evidence in respect of a person convicted of a sexual offence, you now have to do it by going into the witness box or on affidavit. The benefit of doing it that way is you can be subject to cross-examination, which means that the counsel for the DPP will be able to question you on the content of your evidence. My view is people should be entitled to give character evidence in respect of an accused but that they have to be prepared to stand over it. That is why sending in letters which are informally written or without substance is improper and inappropriate.
34. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if, following the Law Reform Commission’s 2026 report on compensating victims of crime, he intends to establish a new statutory body to administer victim compensation; the timeline in which such a body will be established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35608/26]
The Law Reform Commission published its report on compensating victims of crime. Does the Minister intend to apply the recommendations in that report, particularly the one relating to establishing a new statutory victims compensation scheme?
I have read the report from the Law Reform Commission and the Deputy will be pleased to note I have already changed the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The change I have introduced is to remove the prohibition on damages being paid in respect of pain and suffering. That was recommended within the report of Mr. Justice Clarke but also in the ruling of the Blanco judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union that came out last year. We will have to reform the criminal injuries compensation tribunal. It is on an informal, non-statutory basis but I would like to see it put on a statutory basis. I would like to see it called the victims tribunal and I would like to see it apply compensation to victims of criminal acts, certainly covering pain and suffering, as it does now, but other factors will have to be discussed and considered.
