County Clare has welcomed significant numbers of Ukrainian people fleeing the war, just as it did with Hungarian and Kosovan refugees in the past. Our communities opened their schools, organisations and workplaces to them.

Now, four years on, many Ukrainians are moving on from emergency accommodation and hotel contracts are ending. Will the Minister of State confirm how many contracts have been concluded and how many beds may return to their original purpose?

As the Deputy knows, Ireland remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine. My Department continues to work as part of a whole-of-government response to the war in Ukraine with a focus on providing access to emergency, but temporary, accommodation to those fleeing the conflict. For new arrivals, State-contracted accommodation is provided for 30 days in designated centres, together with supports to assist them in making independent living arrangements for those who wish to remain for the duration of temporary protection. As of 13 March 2026, over 125,700 people have fled Ukraine and received temporary protection here. Of those, over 94,300 have requested and been provided with access to State-supported accommodation. Almost 19,200 people are currently in State-contracted accommodation. This is a significant and welcome reduction from a peak of, believe it or not, 60,000 people in November 2023.

All accommodation contracts by my Department are temporary in nature. Persons with temporary protection are advised of that when requesting access to be assigned to temporary accommodation. Approximately 531 contracts are in operation. Our current contracted accommodation capacity is approximately 22,450 beds. It includes hotels, guesthouses and bed and breakfasts. In sourcing and securing accommodation, the central consideration is the safety and security of the displaced people fleeing the war in Ukraine. In 2024 and 2025, approximately 420 and 195 contracts, respectively, were able to be terminated in terms of changes that we are making in the reduction in numbers. So far in 2026, 25 contracts have been terminated and we have received three notices from providers for termination of contracts.

In relation to County Clare, as of the end of February 2025, there were 31 contracts, which was equivalent to 2,610 beds. To give the Deputy an indication, as of the end of February 2026, there were only 18 contracts, with 1,041 beds, representing a very significant return of beds from this area.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

With this reply, I am providing the Deputy as requested with a table that shows the number of contracts and beds by county at the end of February 2025 and end February 2026.

*Please note that the figure for Dublin includes Citywest with 1,704 beds.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply and welcome the reduction in the hotel contracts. This is a positive step, showing that many people are moving on from emergency accommodation by finding homes, entering work and moving elsewhere. We should recognise the support of Clare communities and the contribution many Ukrainians have made in return. Hotels returning to serving visitors is an important opportunity for tourism and the hospitality sector. It will support local businesses, boost occupancy and protect jobs, which is important. Will the Minister of State provide data on how many businesses have exited contracts and are now operating again as tourist accommodation?

I have supplied the Deputy as part of my answer to him a table in tabular form with all the information for every county. I have outlined the total figures to him. It is important to recognise that, as part of an ongoing process, we are moving toward a reduction and eventual elimination of this accommodation situation. There will be a motion coming forward in the Dáil next week regarding the extension of the accommodation recognition payment, ARP. Temporary protection is something that was brought in by the European Commission across Europe, and we wanted to support it in that. As we look to the future and changes in that area, though, we want to see businesses going back to what they were doing originally and having the ability to put beds and accommodation back into local communities for the benefit of those local communities and areas.

Clare has lost thousands of tourist bed nights each month over the past four years, with the vast majority in north and west Clare, where tourism is a key part of the local economy. While I understand that tourism is not directly within the Minister of State's brief, the return of this bed stock is both vital and important. It must be managed to ensure that it delivers the maximum benefit quickly. Will the Minister of State outline whether there is any engagement with local authorities, Fáilte Ireland or Tourism Ireland to make the most of this capacity returning to the market? Are any targeted promotional campaigns planned to boost visitor numbers, where returning to our capacity will make a real and welcome difference?

Obviously, that is not within my area. That would be more within the area of the Minister with responsibility on the tourism side. From our point of view as a Department, what we want to do is facilitate the return of beds to the sector so that they are there and available. Like the Deputy, I would like to see, particularly in a wonderful county like Clare, that those beds would go back into the accommodation, tourism and hospitality sectors. Hospitality and tourism are key drivers for economics in a whole host of counties in our country and are very important. Therefore, as an initial stage, what we are doing here is making the beds available again by terminating the contracts and moving out of this area. I would hope, therefore, that in conjunction with the local authorities, the necessary tourism boards would put in place a process to ensure that those beds go back into hospitality.

I believe that a lot of people in County Clare have been housed through the accommodation recognition payment scheme. From what I can see, it is working well and I have not heard of any major issues from house owners or tenants. It is important that we have a clear picture of how many people are supported under this scheme nationwide. With that in mind, will the Minister of State provide an overall number and county-by-county breakdown of the properties receiving the accommodation recognition payment?

I thank the Deputy. The accommodation recognition payment was introduced to recognise the generosity of people who opened their homes to provide accommodation to beneficiaries of temporary protection in Ireland who fled the war in Ukraine. The ARP scheme is provided in Part 2 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 and is administered by the Department of Social Protection on behalf of our Department. The scheme involves a monthly payment of €600 to a host in respect of providing accommodation in accordance with the rules of the scheme. The ARP is not rent and is not payable where there is a rental agreement in place.

The scheme currently extends to March 2026 but it may be extended by ministerial order - as I mentioned earlier, a motion will be before the Dáil next week in relation to that - in accordance with the legislation. The Deputy may be aware that motions are to be considered in this House and in the Seanad next week that will extend the scheme to March 2027 in line with the current application of the EU temporary protection directive. By the end of February, the ARP scheme had supported over 42,000 temporary protection beneficiaries accommodated in over 23,500 properties at a monthly cost of approximately €14.5 million.

I am providing in tabular form with this response the information sought by the Deputy.

I believe this scheme shows that trust, along with fair financial support, can bring thousands of homes into the rental market. Over 42,000 people are currently housed in more than 20,000 properties, mostly without formal inspection or registration. That is a lot of people willing to rent out their properties under the right circumstances. I am not against proper oversight, but this scheme clearly shows that a system that is simple, fair and works for both sides can be effective. There also appear to be very few complaints about conditions or arrangements. Is there any data that gives way to this?

The scheme has worked, but the time for the scheme should come to an orderly conclusion. Like all temporary schemes, I believe you must look, introduce where needed and phase out where it is no longer appropriate. It is therefore my view that we will be extending the scheme as indicated for 12 months. This will be part of a phasing out process of the ARP. It will also be the intention to reduce the payment from €600 to €400 as part of that phasing out of ARP. That will enable us to have a gradual winding down of the scheme.

Ukrainians who have enjoyed temporary protection in Ireland are a welcome part of our community. There are many opportunities for them to avail of housing in their own right and many Ukrainians are doing so at the moment. We will work to a process of making it very clear the ARP scheme will be coming to an end and will have a phase out on it. I want to make that clear to the Deputy.

The difference between this scheme and the current private rental market is something we should look at closely. The private rental sector sees a lot of RTB disputes, complaints and at times poor relationships between landlords and tenants. The ARP scheme shows a different way of doing things. When property owners are offered a fair, simple and worthwhile arrangement, they respond well. Over 20,000 have already done this.

There are lessons here that could bring more homes into use, ease pressures on rents and improve things for many people who depend on the rental market. It would be a very positive outcome from this programme. Has there been any discussion between the Department of justice and others on how a model like this could be expanded?

I acknowledge what the Deputy is saying but we have to remember how the process of temporary protection came about. It was a temporary process in reaction to accommodation being made available to provide for Ukrainians who had fled from a war. It was designed and put in place as a very particular measure and to facilitate people welcoming people into their homes. It is something for which its time and place is naturally coming to a conclusion. There is a better and fairer way to do it, which allows everyone to have the same access rights to accommodation. The longer term position for Ukrainians who either will or will not return home at the end of the war is that we are putting in place a situation where access to accommodation will be equal and fair with everybody else. While I acknowledge what the Deputy is saying about the scheme and some of its benefits in freeing up accommodation, at this point the best way to deal with it is the orderly wind down we are proposing and moving to the next stage.

I had the opportunity to visit Teach Tearmainn women’s refuge in Kildare recently where I met Lorraine Rowan, the CEO, and her team who are carrying out incredible work. A lot of questions arose from that meeting, particularly the need to outline the criteria being used by Cuan in identifying priority locations for new refuge units and if counties with established domestic, sexual and gender based violence services, such as Kildare, may be considered for inclusion in future phases of refuge development.

I thank Deputy Ó Cearúil for his question. I have also visited Teach Tearmainn. It is a wonderful refuge in County Kildare but, like very many of the refuges that have been established, it is obviously under pressure in terms of meeting the demand for its services, unfortunately.

Cuan is instrumentally part of funding to ensure that we can provide refuges and safe homes for predominantly women who are fleeing domestic violence. We are now increasing funding for Cuan, which is within my Department, up to €80 million per year. It is a very important function that is carried out within my Department. Obviously, there is collaboration between Cuan and a series of stakeholders, whether local authorities, the Department of housing and housing agencies. Between them the objective is to try to identify and ensure there are refuges or, indeed, safe homes, which are of use also, around the country to ensure there is sufficient refuge space and safe home space for people fleeing domestic violence.

The Deputy’s specific question was around whether another location in Kildare could be identified. While Kildare has not been identified as a priority location for new refuge construction in the current phase, Cuan is considering it as a location for consideration in future refuge development programmes and is supportive of ensuring Kildare is on the priority list for phase 2 development.

A lot of work is being done around ensuring new refuge spaces are established. A lot were established last year. The number increased by 13, with four in Louth and nine in Dublin, bringing the total number to 172 refuges. Additionally, another nine units have been developed in Dublin 22 and further units are being developed. I will liaise with Cuan in respect of ensuring Kildare is adequately serviced.

I welcome the Minister saying that Cuan is considering Kildare for phase 2 development. That is welcome news. Teach Tearmainn is in Kildare town, which is quite a considerable distance from the north of the county, from the likes of Maynooth, Leixlip, Celbridge, Kilcock and Clane, and it is technically in the Kildare South constituency. However, it caters for women not only across Kildare but also across the midlands. The work it does is truly outstanding.

One thing that has arisen for Teach Tearmainn is the amount of court-based related work it has been carrying out in Naas. There is need for a refuge centre in Naas, although I should say it has safe houses there. When will phase 2 be considered so that the likes of Teach Tearmainn can plan for the future?

We need to take a broad look at the work Cuan is doing. It is working towards having a minimum of 50 new refuge units under construction across multiple sites this year. Last year the number of safe homes increased by eight which increased the total safe-home capacity to 60. It is working to increase that capacity to 94. That means that by the end of 2026, we aim to increase the number of safe accommodation spaces, refuges and safe homes to 287.

I will come back to the Deputy on the priority phase 2 development issue he raised in terms of timelines. The priority list for phase 2 development has a timeline but a lot of it is about identifying a suitable location. Sometimes that can be difficult to identify. I hear what the Deputy says about Naas. I am happy to engage with him on any proposals he thinks would be suitable for provision of a refuge.

I want to state my appreciation for the work the Minister, Cuan and the Department are doing in increasing supports for domestic violence survivors and indeed those who care for them. What the likes of Teach Tearmainn are looking for is the long- and medium-term assurances that staffing capacity will keep pace with the rising need. We are seeing a rising need, particularly in domestic violence situations which is quite worrying. It is not just in Kildare - it is across the country – and that is reflected in the increased number of refuge centres across the country and in the work the Department is doing. I want to acknowledge the vital work Teach Tearmainn is doing under real pressure and under constraints. The Minister has seen it himself. It has a really impressive set up. Kildare has the population, the demand and the established service infrastructure with Teach Tearmainn to cater for and care for more women not only in Kildare but across the region.

I agree on Teach Tearmainn. It is in a very peaceful location at the end of a quiet road. It is something I am very pleased my Department has been funding. Last year my Department provided funding to Teach Tearmainn of €930,000. It will be funded again this year with probably an increase on that.

While Kildare has not been identified as a priority for new refuge construction in this current phase, Cuan is aware of this as a location for consideration in future. I will engage with the Deputy on this. The demand for these services is very significant, regrettably, but they are needed for short-term refuge spaces for women fleeing domestic abuse. As I will say in my response to the next question, we cannot develop a situation where the default position is that women who are the victims of abuse leave the house while the abuser remains there. We need to move on from that.

I met the new superintendent in Balbriggan this week and she confirmed to me that domestic abuse continued to be one of the most persistent issues in north County Dublin and, I have no doubt, throughout the country. Victims should not be the ones forced to abandon their homes. The victim stays and the abuser leaves must become the standard practice and not just a principle. I ask the Minister to provide an update on his work with Cuan to make sure this principle is actually happening in practice.

As I indicated in my response to Deputy Ó Cearúil earlier, we have to be very careful when discussing the issue of women fleeing domestic violence that we do not present the solution as being removing the woman from the house and putting her, long term, into emergency accommodation in a refuge or a safe home. That cannot be the long-term solution. Refuges or safe homes are needed because sometimes there is an emergency requirement, on a short-term basis, for a woman and her children to leave the home where the abuser is. Ultimately, however, what should be happening if a woman is being abused within a domestic relationship in a home that both partners own or are in a joint tenancy is not that the woman is forced to leave, but the man, the abuser.

My Department is working to develop a new policy on removal orders to take offenders out of the home in high-risk cases. In particular, new powers are under active consideration that would allow gardaí to intervene in cases where they believe there is a high risk of domestic violence offences being committed. Deputy Boland will be aware that emergency barring orders can be sought under section 9 of the 2018 legislation on domestic violence and that is something that needs to be invoked more. An order under section 9 may not exceed eight working days and further emergency barring orders may be made against a respondent within a month of the expiry of a previous barring order where exceptional circumstances justify this. I am aware that those statutory provisions are available and I would like to see more women using them. I will be discussing this with Cuan but, ultimately, it is a matter for this House and the Seanad to determine whether new legislation is required. My own view is that it is not required. What is there in terms of the use of barring orders should be used more, availed of more and provided for more by the courts.

I appreciate the Minister's comments on this. We know the lived reality is that these measures are not being taken quickly enough. What steps is Cuan taking, with the Minister's support, to deliver in terms of ensuring victims are supported in a timely way so that they remain safe?

Cuan is actively collaborating with statutory agencies and organisations to ensure effective responses to reduce the incidence and duration of homelessness arising from domestic violence and to support pathways for long-term accommodation for victims. The demand for safe accommodation remains high and Cuan continues to work with services and agencies to support victim survivor progression and, where appropriate, safe return. Individuals who are victims of domestic abuse need to be aware of the statutory powers that are in place to enable them to get barring orders against an abusing partner. That is something that is not being used as much as I would like. However, I am conscious that it takes time when an application is made. There is a period before the order can be made by the court to remove the abuser from the home. The legislation is strong but we need to spread the message more that the remedy is available.

In terms of making sure that we are following up and doing everything we can in this House, will the Minister commit to publishing clear data on outcomes of domestic abuse cases, including instances where the victim is allowed to stay in the home rather than having to leave, as well as data on the various delays and barriers in the system? We must ensure that all gardaí have the appropriate knowledge and can support all victims. Will the Minister also commit to bringing forward any necessary changes, whether they be legislative or operational, to ensure victims are not displaced?

I agree that data in this area is extremely important. If I have data on outcomes in domestic abuse hearings, I will certainly put it into the public domain, if possible, because it would be important to do so. There have been very significant improvements on the part of An Garda Síochána in recent years in dealing with domestic abuse. I have engaged with protective units within An Garda Síochána that deal specifically with domestic abuse. I will not identify the areas where I have engaged with them but, regrettably, they are very busy. There is a high level of professionalism and knowledge on the part of gardaí who are dealing with what is a really difficult type of policing requirement. In many instances, they are called late in the evening, alcohol may have been consumed and there is a domestic row. It is a difficult scenario for An Garda Síochána but its members are really advancing the interests of victims now and we are beginning to see that. Many people who come out of court as a result of domestic cases praise An Garda Síochána for the support they got.

I thank Deputy Gannon for this interesting question. I announced recently that the Government had approved my proposal to start the process of drafting a new communications interception and lawful access Bill that will update the legislation that is there at present. We can all appreciate that there are circumstances when it is necessary and appropriate for An Garda Síochána to be able to access messages or communications between individuals when gardaí are investigating serious criminal offences. We have seen cases in our courts previously where the communication of messages between individuals has been centrally important in securing convictions for murder, serious child sexual abuse, serious armed robbery or violence. The legislation that I operate under at present was developed and enacted in 1993. It is completely outdated, and it is not just me who is saying that. The judges who conduct the reviews of the work that I conduct under that 1993 legislation have repeatedly stated that the legislation is outdated.

What I am proposing to do is to bring forward legislation that will have very significant safeguards in place. That is a legitimate concern of Deputy Gannon and many others. The safeguards that I am going to ensure will be in place will be such that there will be some form of judicial authorisation of interception requests. There will also be a requirement that agencies requesting an interception will have to outline any issues regarding privileged material, should that arise in any unusual circumstances. Obviously, it is also important to be able to access encrypted messages. A lot of serious criminal activity is being communicated at present with the benefit of encryption. I need to ensure that gardaí can gain access to such encrypted messages because they contain a lot of detailed information that will be of use in the investigation of serious offences.

I understand the rationale for a measure like this. I understand that the legislation the Minister is working off is from 1993 and its drafters would never have foreseen the world we are in now but we need to move carefully and cautiously with a measure such as this. Some of the technology being referenced here might be developed by companies such as Pegasus, for example. In other jurisdictions, Pegasus spyware has been used as a way of monitoring political opposition and has been used unlawfully against journalists.

I understand the rationale for this and we are in a very different world, but I ask the Minister, when he brings forward this legislation, to respect the process by which we can apply the right level of scrutiny. I ask him to work with organisations that can demonstrate best practice in oversight and to make sure that the Oireachtas justice committee has full sight of everything the Minister is proposing at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. I can absolutely see why a measure like this is necessary but the world may also be very different in ten or 20 years' time. A Government ten years from now may be very different from the one we have now or next and may have a different attitude, so the careful drafting of this legislation is important.

I agree with the Deputy that any proposal like this should be considered and progressed carefully and cautiously. What we are trying to do is balance rights.

The rights about which the Deputy is particularly concerned are obviously the rights of privacy, which have to be protected. We do not want to see a situation where the State is able to stick its nose into legitimate communications that do not involve criminal activity by individuals. On the other side of the scale is the fact we need to be able to investigate serious criminal behaviour but at present we do not have access to a lot of information that would be of use in investigating serious criminal behaviour.

The Deputy mentioned a number of issues in terms of type of software that can be used. That is not an issue of concern at present. I know it is an issue of concern to the Deputy and it may arise in the future but the important thing is to put in place a statutory regime that enables access in certain limited circumstances and that very strong safeguards are put in place. If strong safeguards are in place, the Deputy will not have too much to be worried about.

I am taking this question on behalf of Deputy Colm Burke. I would like extend my sympathies to Deputy Burke on the recent death of his mother-in-law. Our thoughts are with him and his wife Mary at this time. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis.

I wish to ask the Minister about his views on the ongoing delay in processing immigration permission renewal applications in view of the fact that at present only applications received from early December 2025 are being processed, the action his Department is taking to reduce the current processing timeline and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I begin by joining the Deputy in offering my sympathies to Deputy Colm Burke.

The registration office of the Department is currently experiencing an exceptionally high demand for immigration permission renewal applications. This has regrettably reduced the timeline of the service to our customers. I understand that the extended wait times can be frustrating for applicants but I assure the Deputy the Department is exploring every avenue available to facilitate as many customers as possible. I had a meeting with my officials on this matter in the past couple of weeks, primarily to increase that processing capacity. The registration office is already open seven days a week to facilitate customers, with a team working considerable overtime as well to try to facilitate this.

Further measures are being put in place to reduce processing times. I expect this will address the delays currently being experienced. The registration office also provides a live processing date, which is updated every Monday, and is available on the website of the Department. It is currently processing applications submitted from 22 December 2025. It is open to customers to submit their applications up to 12 weeks in advance to allow sufficient time for an application to be processed and I would encourage people to take advantage of that.

Deputy Burke mentioned employers and the legality of employment to me, and I am sure he intended to mention it today. We have issued a notice to employers regarding the legality of employing someone awaiting renewal. That notice is also available on the website, so there should be no ambiguity in that area for employees who are worried, or for employers in terms of this.

I thank the Minister of State for his ongoing work in this space. It is very important to see that we are increasing capacity here in terms of renewal of applications. It is good to see the office is open seven days a week and people are working overtime to address the backlog. It is hugely frustrating for people who have applied and are waiting for an answer on this. I do take the point though in terms of seeking applications 12 weeks in advance. That is something we need to get out there a lot more, giving applicants and employers that assurance that they can submit renewal applications up to 12 weeks in advance. It is encouraging that the Minister of State will to continue to work with his officials to see whether they can reduce the timeframe associated with this. We all collectively want to see these applications processed within a four to six-week period, if at all possible. I encourage the Minister of State to continue his work in that regard.

I will do so. As part of that assurance, it is important to say if a person's IRP card has expired and he or she is unable to obtain his or her new one by the expiry date, he or she is still legally permitted to remain in the State. His or her existing IRP card has another maximum of 12 weeks. I fully acknowledge it is frustrating and worrying for people going through this process but, again, I assure the Deputy resources are being put into it to try to eliminate the delays being experienced because of high volume and demand and that we believe we will be in a much better position in terms of catching up and providing the service in the timeline we would like to see for everybody going forward.

The Minister of State's comments of the extension of the IRP card are very welcome - up to 12 weeks after the expiry date. Is it the Minister of State's intention to reduce processing time to four to six weeks? If so, is there a timeframe in which he would like to see that happen over the next number of months and years? It is good to see it brought up in the House today because it is of concern to many people.

We want an efficient and effective service that allows for the fact of those 12 weeks and the fact people are getting a turnaround. There are some exceptional reasons for the surge in demand in terms of the number of people applying. There are particular surge points at different times a year where the numbers go up. We are putting the technology and the systems in place that we believe will allow us to manage this and deliver on the timeline we want to see for people getting their renewals.

I wish to ask the Minister about the assessment he has made on the impact of suspended or short custodial sentences on victims of child abuse and the circulation of such material online, whether he has evidence that current sentencing levels act as a meaningful deterrent regarding child sexual abuse materials and what legislation policy tools he is prepared to deploy if judicial guidelines prove ineffective.

I thank Deputy O'Flynn for this question and the related Questions Nos. 20 and 22.

I recognise the profound and lasting harm caused by offences involving child sexual abuse material, CSAM. What makes this offence particularly pernicious is the fact that when it is done online, there is a continuation of that abuse and damage to the child as a result of the repeated distribution of it online. That is an approach that has to be taken into account when looking at the uniqueness of this offence. As Deputy O'Flynn will be aware, there is a range of offences under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 to address all forms of such abuse. The Act provides for very severe penalties, including for the most serious offences, with a maximum penalty of up to life imprisonment.

Among EU member states, England and Wales, Ireland’s penalties across the 20 offences are on average higher than the vast majority of other countries. A review conducted by my Department indicates that Ireland's penalties to address child sexual abuse offences are among the most punitive in Europe and far exceed the maximum sentence requirements set out in the 2011 child sexual abuse directive. The Deputy may be aware that directive is being renegotiated at present. There needs to be a new child sexual abuse directive within the EU considering developments that have arisen.

If we look at the penalties under some of the legislation, whether the 1998 Act or the 2017 sexual offences Act, we can see that the penalties range up to ten to 14 years. Under the 1998 Act, there are penalties up to life imprisonment for child trafficking and taking a child for sexual exploitation or up to 14 years for the participation of a child in pornographic performances.

I thank the Minister for the reply but I am asking whether the Department has carried out a full assessment of this. We can all call a spade a spade. Not a month has gone by where we have not read an article in a newspaper regarding suspended sentences for first-time offenders or those who have been caught for the first time when it comes to child sexual abuse images and online images.

Certainly, it upsets a number of people in my constituency and Members in this House as well when we see people with large volumes of vile images being used and circulated, and walking away with a suspended sentences.

I appreciate there is a precedent with the Loving case. We all are aware of that in this House. What I am getting at is whether the Minister is prepared to introduce legislation to circumvent this because District Court judges are saying they are stuck because of the precedent with the Loving case. I also appreciate that for a second-time offender, who has received a suspended sentence, that under the 1998 Act, all judges provide very stiff sentence.

Sentencing is a very complex area of a judge's function. Generally, what we do in this House is set out what the maximum sentence can be. Sometimes we put in a mandatory sentence - such as in the case for murder where there is the common law mandatory sentence of life in prison - but, in general, we set maximum sentences and give leeway to the Judiciary to decide where to go.

Obviously, no offence is going to be similar. No offender is going to be similar, as Deputy O'Flynn will be aware, even in the area of child sexual abuse. Obviously, somebody who is a repeat offender would merit a much stronger custodial sentence than a person who was convicted for the first time.

I am not proposing to bring forward legislation at this stage to amend the provisions in respect of sentencings that are contained within the 1998 and 2017 legislation but it is important to be aware that under the sentencing guidelines, we can and hope to see the Judiciary set out guidelines for certain types of criminal offences.

I have to say I am disappointed to hear the Minister is not prepared to bring new legislation to this House. At this stage, should we not be setting a minimum rather than just a maximum sentence given the type of crime it is? These are the most heinous images of child abuse and surely we should be providing for a minimum sentence at this stage rather than setting the maximum. I would ask the Minister to reassess that. I notice the Minister did not answer my last question about what assessments are being done. I do not know if he has that information in front of him today. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the idea that he would not introduce new legislation to set minimum sentencing rather than maximum sentencing. I know it is slightly different but it is time to reconsider whether we put in a minimum sentence or not.

The Deputy raises an interesting point about the use of mandatory minimum sentences. We did that previously in this House in respect of firearms offences where we said there was to be a mandatory sentence of, I think, five years and the Supreme Court looked at that and said it was unconstitutional because it did not give any exceptionality or discretion to a court. Introducing minimum mandatory sentences could get us into significant difficulties because we have to allow some discretion to a court. As the Deputy indicated, if it was the case - and I know these are horrific offences - that it was a very naive 18-year-old who foolishly looked at something online and saved it as compared to somebody who, for profit, was generating images of children for sexual abuse and for the purpose of generating income and who had a series of offences, those two offenders would have to be treated differently. I am concerned that if we had a minimum mandatory sentence, it could require no discretion on the part of the court.

I want to ask the Minister the number of Garda members who have retired or resigned from An Garda Síochána in each of the past five years, whether his Department has carried out any analysis of the reasons for those departures, the number of members currently eligible to retire within the next three years and the measures being taken to improve retention within the force.

I thank Deputy Gannon for his question. I alluded to this in my response to Deputy Carthy earlier. In terms of resignations, 141 gardaí resigned from An Garda Síochána in 2025. That is a very low number. The number of gardaí is over 14,300 and, therefore, it is less than 1%. In terms of the number of retirements and resignations together over the past five years, 382 gardaí resigned or retired in 2021, 446 in 2022, 486 in 2023, 377 in 2024 and 359 in 2025. As I said, those figures include resignations and retirements. There is nothing we can do about gardaí who get to the retirement age and who want to retire but I suppose the figure that is of concern to me - I do not know if it is a concern to the Deputy - and that I would be interested in is that for resignations.

The number of resignations has been low for the years to which I referred. In 2021, there were 89 resignations; in 2022, there were 106; in 2023, there were 167; in 2024, there were 137; and, as I said, last year, there were 141. That is indicative of low levels of resignation from the force, which is good. It is not something I am complacent about. I want to ensure that people who join up to An Garda Síochána find it a fulfilling career and that their terms and conditions are good. It is part of my function to ensure that resignations are kept as low as they are. It is a good sign because when you look at the Met, the PSNI or police forces in other places, you will see resignations are much higher than that.

I thank the Minister for his response. There was one part of the question he did not answer, which was the number of gardaí eligible to retire within the next three years. That is a figure of particular concern to me. When the Minister wrote about this issue in 2024, it was of particular concern to him. At that time, he talked about nearly 50% of the force becoming eligible for retirement by 2028. The figure he had in that article in 2024 was 6,400 gardaí becoming eligible for retirement. That was because in the late 1980s and 1990s, there was a large recruitment drive and the majority of those gardaí are now coming towards retirement age. The genuine concern is that the number of people we are recruiting to the Garda will not be able to match the number of gardaí who are reaching the age of eligibility for retirement. Previously, the Minister talked about activating the Garda Reserve and the expansion of Templemore but, as he said himself, there is potential for a retirement crisis on the horizon. What is the Government doing to mitigate that?

I should have answered that question because the Deputy did ask it. There is a cumulative figure of 1,792 gardaí that will become eligible to retire by 2028. That, of course, does not mean that this number will retire over this period, only that they will be eligible to do so. For example, a Garda member may have 30 years of service or more at age 55 but may opt not to retire for the next seven years until they reach the mandatory retirement age of 62. The Commissioner can, with my consent, extend the age of retirement of a Garda member beyond 62, where this is in the interests of the efficiency of the force. I am always pleased to see applications coming before me from the Commissioner for the extension of a retirement age beyond 62. A lot of people do not want to retire at 55. It is far too young. The figure, as I said, is 1,792. I do not think we will see that number taking up retirement. However, it is an issue we need to be aware of. It also emphasises the need to ensure that recruitment is ongoing.

I would like to hear more about the recruitment and the capacity for expansion, particularly around Templemore. We reach a particular limit when the Garda does recruitment drives. A lot of people put themselves forward but such is the level of time it takes for the training, which is obviously necessary, and for vetting, which we have seen huge problems with, I do not believe we are bringing enough people through to cover the potential retirements that are on the horizon. That figure of 1,700 eligible is different from the figure the Minister got through parliamentary questions two years ago, which there was a great emphasis on. How is that mitigated because at different points morale in the Garda goes up and goes down? The numbers the Minister gave me for retirements for the past five years are fairly consistent; they are in the 400s and the high 300s. If we have greater capacity for retirements, are we doing any exit interviews with gardaí who are leaving? What measures are we taking? Obviously, it is welcome if a person wishes to postpone their retirement beyond the age of 55. That is their choice and I can understand that.

However, there are many who will not want to do that and many who have not done so.

The important thing is that we get Garda numbers continuously going up, which is happening. There are always going to be retirements and some small level of resignations but, cumulatively, we want to see the figures of attested gardaí rising, and we are seeing that.

The Deputy asked about exit interviews. The Garda offers exit interviews to all individuals who leave the organisation, with the exception of those who are dismissed. They were established to determine longitudinal teams in relation to organisational attrition, but they highlighted some useful issues. In 2024, 39 exit interviews were completed. The majority, or 60%, stated they found it difficult to maintain their career as a Garda member while also managing their family life, 40% stated that the commuting and working distance from their homes was a significant deciding factor and another cohort expressed a view that poor management was a factor for their decision to leave. The numbers are low but many of the people who are leaving and doing these exit interviews, those who have resigned, are doing so because of a work-life balance, which happens in every walk of life. People decide the work just does not suit their lifestyle. However, I am pleased to say the number of resignations is very low.

The Minister is aware that Garda vetting is a very important issue for voluntary organisations, schools and healthcare. It takes too long and seems to be quite cumbersome insofar as a person who moves position has to be revetted in a way that does not seem necessary.

I am aware there is a Garda vetting review group. Has the Minister received its recommendations or report? Has he had a chance to review them? Will those recommendations be implemented? If so, when?

I met with the Garda National Vetting Bureau in Tipperary town about two months ago. I went down there to get an update from the bureau, but also to communicate some of the concerns Deputy Ward and other Deputies have expressed to me.

It is important to point out that the vetting bureau of An Garda Síochána received over 6,330 vetting applications in 2025. The current processing time for 85% of those is eight to nine working days. For the majority of applications, it manages to produce an outcome in very short order. There are obviously some improvements that could be made. One thing I mentioned at my meeting with the gardaí in the vetting bureau is that we should allow for transferability of vetting. A person who has been vetted to coach a GAA team should be able to then move over and coach a soccer team without having to get vetting done again. Much of that can be done by the organisations themselves, such as the sporting organisations. The Teaching Council has a very good mechanism whereby it permits transferability of vetting from one school to another and the vetting moves with the teacher when they move across the school.

There is also an issue in respect of wet signatures and whether online signatures would be permissible. There was concern expressed to me by An Garda Síochána in respect of that. From its perspective, one reason for delays is that sometimes individuals have been abroad for several years. That can give rise to significant delay because the bureau is dependent on getting information from abroad. That is an understandable reason for there being a delay, but it is important to point out that, as I said, over 630,000 applications came in last year, and the bureau processed the vast majority of them very promptly.

I am surprised the number is as low as that. I welcome the fact many of them are being dealt with in under ten days, but that does not accord with the anecdotal accounts being given to me. I do not know whether there is prioritisation within the system. There should be, because some of the applications are time sensitive. As regards the issues the Minister has raised, we can see in other jurisdictions that there is a central register, for example, with a rolling account for any individual that can be checked immediately. It should not be up to individual organisations like the Teaching Council or sports clubs to set up transferability. That should be done centrally.

It is very important that the recommendations from the Garda vetting review group bring an effectiveness to Garda vetting that means it will be operable and will work, particularly for volunteer organisations. When there is a significant delay in vetting, it discourages volunteers and makes it difficult for sports clubs to get the coaches in to teach the underage teams and things like that. Let us ensure we put in place measures that make vetting work for our communities, as much as anything else.

One of the consequences of being a public representative is that people only ever come to us when they have issues of concern. They are never going to come to us and say, "Deputy, that is a fantastic vetting process. I managed to get a response within eight days."

I am conscious that aspects of the current vetting system result in a highly segmented process. It should be updated to ensure the burden of seeking vetting disclosures, particularly on volunteers and organisations working in their communities, is minimised to the greatest extent possible while maintaining the necessary high standards. Further to the work carried out by the Garda vetting review group, steps are now being taken to implement key changes to the process that will ensure it remains robust and effective, while improving the service to customers.

In practice and subject to a general requirement that vetting be renewed every three years, it is envisaged that this will mean that when a person is vetted for the work they will be, or are likely to be, involved in as part of their employment or volunteering within identified risk categories, the person will not be required to repeat the process if they were to move to another role within the same risk category.

In respect of operability, renewals and things like that, the Minister mentioned the Garda having a difficulty with online signatures. We have to get over that. If we have a situation where this Government is proposing, for example, online age verification using certain existing ID systems, surely we can also do that for vetting.

I recognise there is a problem with waiting for news to come back from abroad where somebody has lived abroad. Is there something we should be doing at European level to implement a co-operation agreement between countries in the European Union to speed up that process? I am also conscious that, in the vetting process, a letter is sent to every Garda district in which the person lived and the Garda has to wait for information to come back. Is there a way of streamlining that?

In response to a parliamentary question I put to the Minister in February, he indicated improvements to the vetting system might require legislation. Can the Minister clarify whether that will be primary legislation or secondary legislation? Will it come before the House soon, or does he have any news on that?

It would be primary legislation. I will come back to the Deputy on that. It will not be coming in the very near future but it is something I am committed to doing. It will also require updated technical systems to support the revised approach.

When I was down in Tipperary with the vetting bureau, I raised the issue of the wet signature for vetting. Currently, the bureau does not accept digital signatures as their use presents security and integrity risks within the vetting process. I was told these include potential disputes over identity, intent and the possibility of document tampering. Garda authorities have also highlighted vulnerabilities associated with digital signatures, including identity theft and social engineering attacks, which could significantly increase the risk of impersonation. For these reasons, a wet signature is currently required to provide valid consent to the vetting process. While initial engagement can take place online, a face-to-face element remains necessary to verify identity and obtain handwritten consent.

Around the country, we have finished up with the old joint policing committee model and are moving to community partnerships. Could the Minister comment on the resourcing of community partnerships around the country and, in particular, how those resources are targeted to the varying needs of different areas?

The Government is committed to the principle that everyone, wherever they live in Ireland, should be able to feel safe. Building safe and secure communities by investing in An Garda Síochána is a top priority for the Government. However, the introduction of local community safety partnerships around the country represents a new and more collaborative approach to community safety. They are an important step towards a more collaborative, responsive and locally driven model of public safety. The safety partnerships bring together a broad range of relevant stakeholders to address community issues in their area, including residents, community representatives, business and education representatives, local councillors and a range of public services, including senior representatives of the HSE, Tusla, An Garda Síochána and local authorities. The Deputy will appreciate this is much broader than the membership of the previous joint policing committees.

One of the premises behind this partnership approach is that every community is different, as the Deputy has said. Membership in each safety partnership is configured to give the broadest representation across the relevant State actors and demographic and community interests in the local area in order to achieve the safest outcomes.

Each local partnership will be responsible for developing a tailored and prioritised plan specific to that area, in conjunction with the community and the relevant public services. The intention is to build the capacity of local residents and the community to contribute meaningfully to the local community safety partnership and grow local leadership and participation. This structure will ensure that communities have a strong say in what actions are prioritised by the services operating in their area. They will also have a key oversight role in ensuring those actions are followed through.

I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. There are two community safety partnerships in my constituency. One of them, the Dublin central local community safety partnership, is a long-established partnership that was part of the original pilot. My Green Party colleague, Councillor Janet Horner, sits on that partnership. Given that it has been in place for a number of years, we can make two points. First, there is no specific budget for this community partnership and, second, there is no specific funding commitment from the statutory agencies which sit on it and which the Minister of State listed. These partnerships are understood as being an innovation and a change from the joint policing committees that I would have sat on back in the day. The concern is that if there is no specific budget directly for the safety partnership, or no specific commitment from those statutory bodies that are sitting on it, this limits the ability of the community safety partnership to deliver for the citizens in that area.

Budget 2026 provided €8 million for the National Office for Community Safety. That funding will support the functions of the office, which is developing a national strategy for improving community safety. Each safety partnership is supported by a dedicated community safety co-ordinator and an administrator. Both of these permanent positions are funded by the Department of justice and hosted within each local authority. The community safety co-ordinator will support the safety partnership in its work. It will also bring together the diverse group of agencies and residents engaged in the joint planning and co-ordination of the services for each of the communities, including the design and delivery of community safety projects for each of the relevant areas.

I am delighted to hear there is €8 million for the central office. I have no doubt the councillors and the statutory bodies, particularly the local community representatives, would have a very clear idea as to how a proportion of that money could be spent well locally. I would say it is the same whether we are talking about Cabra or west Limerick. My concern centres on what has been described as a very transformative approach to how we address community safety, and how we link the Garda and local authorities with those statutory bodies. A lot of political capital has been expended on making this change from the joint policing committee model to the community safety partnership model, yet the key deliverable, which is having some element of resources and finance to deliver on the recommendations for a very specific community, is not there. That is a worry. Can these bodies deliver if they do not have the financial resources to implement their initiatives?

As I said, a safety co-ordinator and an administrator have been funded. Equally, many of the main participants on the new safety partnerships are State agencies that are also very adequately funded, such as An Garda Síochána, Tusla, the HSE and local authorities. The whole idea of these partnerships is to bring people together, along with community representatives, to make sure the priorities, needs, demands and asks of the local communities are being prioritised into action plans, particularly by the State agencies. It is about directing and empowering the State agencies to make sure they are responsive to the needs of the local community.

As the Deputy knows, the community safety fund has been created from the proceeds of crime, which are assets and money seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau. It is also available to communities across Ireland. Last year, 127 communities were funded from the community safety fund to the tune of €4.4 million.