Rental Sector
1. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if he will introduce an amendment to the Planning and Development Act 2024 empowering planning authorities to apply administrative fines to short-term letting platforms such as a company (details supplied) and others where they advertise short-term lets in rent pressure zones that are not in compliance with planning law, as proposed in the Short-term Lettings Enforcement Bill 2022, Second Stage of which was passed by Dáil Éireann in May 2022. [13255/25]
As the Minister knows, the overwhelming majority of short-term lettings within the State are operating illegally and in clear breach of planning law. In 2022, the House dealt with legislation to strengthen the enforcement of the short-term letting regulations, specifically within rent pressure zones. Is this a proposition the Minister and his departmental officials are currently considering in parallel to the ongoing work for the register for short-term letting, which one of his Cabinet colleagues is working on?
I thank the Deputy for his question. We recognise the need to address the short-term letting sector in areas of housing need, especially in areas of high demand such as Dublin city, and where properties are not compliant with planning requirements. The Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment is committed to introducing a short-term letting and tourism Bill that will provide the statutory basis for the introduction of regulatory controls for short-term lets, including the establishment of a register to be managed by Fáilte Ireland, and for the implementation of the harmonised EU short-term rental regulation, which was adopted on 14 April 2024 and will be applicable from 20 May 2026. The short-term letting and tourism Bill will include shared data requirements such as specific addresses and activity profiles for each short-term let unit. This will enable authorities to implement and enforce a balance between the short- and long-term accommodation sectors. Member states will be required to introduce penalties for online short-term rental platforms that do not comply with their obligations under the short-term rental regulation. This matter will be addressed under the short-term letting and tourism Bill.
It is important that there is a clear and consistent policy approach at national and local authority levels to determining planning applications for short-term lets. Any amendment to planning legislation will be informed by policy and consider multiple factors, including long-term housing need in the local authority area, the location of the proposed short-term let and the need to balance housing need with the potential impact on tourism and economic development.
It has been a decade since the issue of unregulated short-term lets in high rental demand areas was raised on the floor of the Dáil. Significant work was done on a cross-party basis in the Oireachtas housing committee in 2018. An all-party report was agreed and we worked with the Minister's predecessor, the former Deputy Eoghan Murphy, on the 2019 regulations. The problem with the regulations is they are now virtually unenforceable.
As I am sure the Minister knows, our party is willing to work with him on the short-term letting and tourism Bill and we agree there needs to be an appropriate response that addresses unregulated short-term lets in rent pressure zones in a way that does not negatively impact tourism product in more rural constituencies. There is still a need, however, to introduce penalties on platforms such as Airbnb and estate agents that are currently facilitating and profiting from widespread breaches of planning law. I am interested to hear more on what the Minister means by penalties on platforms in his response. He might provide a little more detail in that respect.
I thank Deputy Ó Broin again for raising this important question. We know that short-term lets are a problem, not just in Ireland but right across the world, particularly where properties are taken over and used. It is an increasing problem in Ireland, putting significant pressure on areas of high demand, such as Dublin city.
I am working with the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke. Ireland has introduced regulations, but enforcement has proven to be very difficult. To set out some of the challenges, planning breaches where someone has put up a physical building are easy to identify and prosecute. When it relates more to a service, though, it can be quite difficult to detect it and gather the necessary evidence to bring a prosecution.
I am determined to tackle this issue. It is putting huge pressure on our rental sector and homelessness. I agree that it is unacceptable for companies to profit from breaches of the Planning and Development Act or any law.
Unfortunately, many of us warned of the challenges of enforcement when the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy, was introducing the 2019 regulations. There is a solution to this as regards the platforms, that being, to amend the Planning and Development Act to allow planning authorities to apply administrative spot fines to platforms like Airbnb for every day they advertise properties that are not in compliance with planning law. I strongly urge the Minister's Department - in parallel with the Minister, Deputy Burke's work on the short-term letting and tourism Bill - to look at parallel changes to the Planning and Development Act to do exactly that. This would remove the onerous requirement for local authority planning sections to have to go to the courts to prove something very difficult.
It is a simple requirement. A short-term letting platform like Airbnb or an estate agent should be required under the planning Acts to secure clarity on planning compliance from the host. If that is not available to the planning authority on request, every single day that property is advertised, an administrative fine that does not require court sanction is applied. That would clean up the Act. 2026 is too far away and if the planning changes were done earlier, they could have huge effect, particularly in areas with a significant rental and homelessness crisis, such as Dublin city, Cork and others.
It is unacceptable that there are commercial entities profiteering from situations where people are in breach of the law. We want an approach where we can enforce the law in such a way as to ensure these properties are brought back into use and are available for long-term renting in high pressure zone areas, while ensuring the impact on more rural areas that rely on short-term lets for economic and tourism purposes is minimised. I intend to bring a fresh pair of eyes to that enforcement. The Deputy's suggestions will be part of those considerations.
Housing Provision
2. Deputy Conor Sheehan asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to confirm if he intends to review the housing completion target for 2025; the number of new homes his Department estimates will now be completed in 2025; the additional measures he plans to take to increase housing construction; the engagement he has had with the Department of Finance and Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, respectively, on new taxation and expenditure measures to boost delivery; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12698/25]
Will the Minister confirm whether he intends to review the housing completion target for 2025, how many new homes does his Department estimate will be completed in 2025, what additional measures does he plan to take to increase housing construction, and what engagement has he had with the Departments of Finance and public expenditure on new taxation and expenditure measures to boost delivery?
The programme for Government commits to delivering more than 300,000 houses between 2025 and the end of 2030, an average of over 50,000 per annum. Delivery over the period will need to rise incrementally to 60,000 homes per year by 2030. This target of reaching an annual average of over 50,000 homes is both ambitious and credible. It is drawn from the work done by the ESRI in 2024 on population growth and structural household demand.
We clearly need to significantly scale-up capacity across the construction industry in the coming years and reaching 60,000 new homes by 2030 will be an enormous challenge. This can be facilitated by targeted support to grow the construction industry’s capacity year-on-year, establishing a platform from which housing supply can be ramped up to the higher levels needed. It is intended to revisit these targets in 2027 if, reflecting on demand and growing construction capacity, we need different targets for 2028 and subsequent years.
There is ongoing engagement between my Department and the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform regarding all financing arrangements related to housing. These will continue both in the context of review of the national development plan, the multi-annual funding requirements for the new housing plan committed to in the programme for Government and as part of normal annual Estimates discussions. My Department does not forecast new housing completions in any given year, however.
Regarding targets, there has been a great deal in the news in the past of couple of months, including yesterday, to show that the Government will not reach its stated targets for the next three years. We have 250,000 too few homes for the population and the Housing Commission report is very clear.
How does the Minister intend to make sure we reach the housing targets as set out in the programme for Government? I urge him to revisit the targets before 2027. What sort of engagement has he had with the Department of public expenditure? I am hearing that the AIB windfall money that was promised has not actually come down the line yet.
The Department never makes projections of what housing delivery will be. We have heard in the past number of weeks everything from 30,000 to 40,000 through different sectors in terms of various projections for completions. The outcome will be what will be. My intention will be to maximise the delivery of housing over the next 12 months and, indeed, over the next number of years. As Minister for housing, I am re-examining every aspect of how we deliver on those targets and what else we can do to ensure that they can be delivered. There are clear challenges in the system to the delivery of housing and we need to look at this from a fresh perspective in terms of how we can reach those targets.
I am in regular contact with the Department of public expenditure and reform, but I would point out that there is record funding for capital delivery of housing for this year.
I did not hear anything specific in the Minister's reply in regard to what the Government is actually going to do to get us out of this quagmire we are in. I want to follow that up by asking about apartment delivery. We have a specific issue with apartments. It was revealed this morning in The Irish Times that the croí cónaithe city scheme had only delivered 17% of its target. It has delivered nothing in Limerick, the city I represent. Rents in Limerick rose by 19% last year and Limerick had the largest increase nationwide in terms of house prices.
How does the Minister propose to make apartment construction, particularly outside of Dublin, viable again? What new measures does the Government intend to introduce? We know that section 23 did not work during the boom, but we clearly need to do something because apartment approvals dropped by nearly 40% last year.
I agree, in that apartment delivery has collapsed. That is very clear. We need to have radical thinking in terms of how we get that supply of apartments moving again. That is where the significant shortfall in reaching our targets has happened, particularly in Dublin city but also in our other cities, including Limerick. Apartments need to be delivered. I intend to take significant action to get those moving. I am waiting for the Housing Agency to publish its report in the next couple of weeks. We will examine its proposals in certain areas and look at what we need to do to ensure we get apartments delivery moving again. We need to take radical action on it.
3. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to comment on the ongoing delay in his Department's approvals for social and affordable housing projects funded via SHIP, CAS, CALF, CREL and AHF; to confirm the total number of projects submitted to his Department under each funding stream since September 2024 to date in 2025; the number that have been approved, and the local authority, or approved housing bodies, involved formally notified of that approval during the same time period. [13256/25]
A significant number of social and affordable housing applications were delayed in the Minister's Department at the latter end of last year, pending approval. We do not have the final figure but it could be anywhere in the region of 5,000 units. At Cabinet, the Minister got approval to progress 3,000 of those. However, my understanding is that the vast majority of those have yet to be formally approved with the relevant local authorities and approved housing bodies. Will the Minister confirm the status of the approvals for those 3,000 units, in particular the communication with the local authorities and approved housing bodies? Will he tell us the total number of homes that were delayed pending approval last year and how many are still awaiting approval?
The Government is fully committed to working with all stakeholders to deliver social, affordable and cost rental homes at scale, with a record level of investment being provided for the delivery of housing in 2025 - capital funding of €6.5 billion supplemented by current funding of €1.65 billion. The number of new-build social homes in the pipeline for delivery in the three-year period 2025 to 2027 is circa 36,000 homes, the highest ever for a three-year period. The strongest national delivery of social housing since 1975 was recorded in 2022 with 10,254 social homes delivered. This was exceeded in 2023 with 11,938 homes.
Affordability and the chance to own a home is at the heart of the Government’s housing policy. As detailed under Housing for All, the Government plans to deliver 54,000 affordable homes by 2030, with 36,000 affordable purchase and 18,000 cost rental homes. A comprehensive implementation strategy is in place to support the various affordable housing schemes now being delivered by a range of delivery partners.
Since September 2024, my Department has approved 273 social and affordable housing projects and continues to approve projects. As with all Exchequer-funded projects, my Department, as approving authority, assesses each project application for suitability, value for money and compliance with the various requirements of the applicable funding scheme. There will always be projects on hand with my Department which are either under assessment or the subject of further engagement with local authorities or approved housing bodies. This is perfectly normal in the context of the circa 2,500 social and affordable housing projects which have been or are being handled by my Department currently and are scheduled for delivery in the period 2025 to 2027.
The Minister's predecessor had a terrible habit of refusing to answer very reasonable questions from the Opposition during Priority Questions. I had hoped that the Minister would not repeat that pattern. Unfortunately, he has done so just now. He has failed to address the question. There was not a perfectly normal situation at the end of last year. We know that because the local authorities, approved housing bodies and building contractors and developers have told us that. There was a huge delay in anything up to 5,000 units of social and affordable housing. That was caused in part by a significant overspend in the Department because there were challenges around the operation of the cost rental equity loan as well as the social housing investment fund.
The Minister sought and secured approval for 3,000 social and affordable homes at Cabinet. Of those, how many notifications have been passed on to local authorities and approved housing bodies so that they can get working on them? Of the remainder, how many are still awaiting approval? These are reasonable questions. I got a poor reply from the Minister to a parliamentary question over a week ago when he refused to provide me with the information. We should not have these kinds of rows, so please will the Minister address the question I have asked?
I thank the Deputy for his question. We received an additional €450 million a couple of weeks ago to release up to 3,000 new properties to be delivered. We are working our way through those approvals as quickly as possible. As the Deputy will know, they need to be assessed before final approval. The majority of those have now been done. It is something that is in flux at any moment in time, but I expect the last of those to be approved in the next couple of weeks in terms of funding.
Regarding other applications on hand, we have an open call, applications come in and we process them. However, the fact that an application comes in does not mean it is necessarily going to be funded.
The additional €450 million of capital approved by Cabinet still means the total capital expenditure for social and affordable homes this year is less than the total outturn last year. It is an improved situation but it is not a better situation. To be clear, is the Minister telling me that a majority of those 3,000 units have completed all of the processes with the Department and the relevant local authorities and approved housing bodies have been notified? Is he also saying that all of those 3,000 units will have the formal notification to the local authorities and approved housing bodies within a couple of weeks, as he said?
I appreciate the Minister is new in the Department and getting his head around this. At the end of last year, there was an exceptional situation. It was the first time that had happened in my time tracking social and affordable housing delivery. It has caused huge difficulties, including potential damage to relationships between approved housing bodies and building contractors. It has caused enormous frustration in local authorities. There is a real fear it will impact on output, maybe not this year, but in terms of Government targets for social and affordable housing next year and the year after. Will the Minister provide absolute clarity that all of the delivery agencies, local authorities and approved housing bodies will be fully notified of those 3,000 approvals within a matter of weeks?
I understand the frustration among local authorities and approved housing bodies but there was a general election, which caused a certain delay in projects. Those projects are being worked through now as quickly as possible, though. A final check always has to be done on every project before its approval is notified to the local authority. I cannot guarantee that every single house will be approved within that, if an issue arises on the final check.
What I see is that, subject to everything being in accordance with the requirements through those checks, any of them that are still outstanding would be approved in the coming weeks.
Planning Issues
4. Deputy Rory Hearne asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if his attention has been drawn to recent CSO data showing that the number of new homes approved annually fell by over 21% in 2024; his plans to introduce an alternative policy measure to address this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12895/25]
In terms of the planning applications, we have seen a significant fall in applications. The figures are down over 21% annually, and apartments even further. What are the Minister's plans to address this? In particular, does it not show that the Minister's housing policy and Housing for All as a policy has not worked, that new measures are required and, in fact, that the reliance on institutional investors to deliver homes and apartments is an unreliable approach?
The planning permission data released by the CSO last week is concerning. It can be seen within the data that the overall dip is driven mainly by a fall in the permissions for apartments.
This illustrates the enormous challenge of meeting our revised housing targets, the critical role of apartment delivery in this regard, and the importance of securing private capital investment to fund this delivery at the levels needed over the next decade and beyond. Government is committed to meeting this challenge and is taking a twin-track approach with a mix of pragmatic short-term and strategic long-term actions to help build on the recent significant uplift in delivery and sustain this into the future.
Government is already examining actions to scale-up delivery in the immediate term, pending completion of a new all-of-government national housing plan committed to in the programme for Government. To this end, we are actioning priority commitments in the programme for Government with the potential to make an immediate impact, such as establishing a new strategic housing activation office.
While supporting longer term delivery, such measures will also help maximise the impact of measures already introduced to strengthen the housing supply pipeline, including the development levy waiver and water connection rebate, which seek, inter alia, to activate the large number of planning permissions already in the system and address viability issues in relation to apartment delivery.
Further proposals for measures to help scale up delivery to 300,000 new homes by the end of 2030 will be considered in the context of the new plan.
I do not see the radical reset in the Minister's response that the Housing Commission called for and the Minister himself agreed was needed. We know the definition of insanity is continuing the same policy or same approach and expecting a different outcome.
On the question about the planning and apartments, there is over-reliance on institutional investors. Institutional investors invest on the basis of their profit viability projections. If they think that there is not sufficient profit there, they do not invest. Is the policy plan essentially to increase their profits so that it becomes, in their estimation, viable? We know what that means. It means rents rising or other ways. Is the Minister talking about, as we have heard, tax breaks? Is he talking about more subsidies? The Government's own croí conaithe scheme, The Irish Times showed today, has only delivered 20% of the apartments it was supposed to deliver. In that, developers could get €120,000 per apartment. Where is it proposed that the subsidies would end?
This year the Government has already committed €6.5 billion towards delivering housing in this country. We need probably a minimum of €20 billion spent on housing to deliver the necessary housing. The rest of that money has to come from the private sector. Financial firms, whether national or international, are a key part of that because you need that private funding to deliver those properties.
While the Deputy is quick to criticise, his own manifesto commits to private funding to deliver housing in this country and yet he is not setting out what he would do in terms of where he would get that funding from.
We will look at this radically again. I accept international firms need to make a profit. That is stating the obvious. We need to look at this to see how we can get those investors back into this country - they are in other countries - to deliver through the private sector the housing that we need in this country.
The Minister is repeating the same tropes that the Taoiseach repeats that we have had no alternatives. If the Minister looked at our election manifesto, he is correct that we talked about using private investment but it is the particular type of private investment. The Taoiseach is also spinning this by saying we are against private investment. We are not against private investment in housing. What we are against is shaping the entire housing system around the profitability demands of institutional funds and institutional investors. There are multiple different forms of private investment. One of the solutions we have put forward is using a new State saving scheme, as they do in France, to leverage the €160 billion that is available in banks in this country. We cannot just rely on commercial banks to channel that money into housing. What they have in France is a state saving scheme that creates a fund that funds affordable housing directly. Why can we not do that? That is private finance but it is not the speculative private finance that the Government seems to be obsessed with.
It is private finance that will also want a profit. No matter what way you do it, private finance will always seek a profit - even those Irish savers if you tapped into them. I am not against that. We are going to examine that carefully to see if that can be done, but they will still want a profit for their funding. They are not going to put their money away if they do not think they are going to make a profit. No matter what way you do this, private finance requires a profit to instigate that type of investment. We will look at all the possible levers to do that.
Housing Schemes
5. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to confirm the total delivery of affordable purchase and cost-rental homes in 2024 by local authorities, approved housing bodies and the Land Development Agency; and his views on the low output under these schemes and growing number of people unable to access these properties due to the unaffordable rents and house prices. [13257/25]
Can the Minister tell us, if he has the figures, the final outturn for the affordable housing schemes delivered by local authorities, approved housing bodies and the Land Development Agency in 2024? Does he share my concern about the low output of these schemes to date and the increasing unaffordability of both the cost rentals and the affordable purchase units across the State?
I thank the Deputy for his question. Under Housing for All, the Government set out plans to deliver 54,000 affordable homes, including 36,000 affordable purchase and 18,000 cost-rental homes, by 2030. The target for 2024 across all of the various delivery streams was 6,400.
A comprehensive implementation strategy is in place to support the various affordable housing schemes now being delivered by a range of delivery partners.
My Department publishes programme-level statistics on affordable and social housing delivery activity by local authorities and delivery partners in each local authority area. Data up to quarter 3 2024 is already published on the statistics page of my Department's website. Data for quarter 4 2024 is currently being verified, and I expect my Department will be in a position to report shortly.
In the first nine months of 2024, a total of 4,480 affordable housing options were delivered across both affordable purchase and cost-rental delivery streams via local authorities, the Land Development Agency, approved housing bodies and through the first home scheme.
While the quarter 4 figures are being verified, I anticipate that 2024 will be the best year to date for delivery of affordable homes by our delivery partners and I note the hard work going into that delivery right across the sector.
Affordable housing schemes are now operating at scale and this momentum will continue as the pipeline is developed by local authorities, approved housing bodies and the Land Development Agency.
Unfortunately, the facts, as provided on the Department's website, flatly contradict the Minister's assessment of the success of these schemes. The target for affordable purchase and affordable cost rental in 2022 was 2,100 units. The Government missed that by 52%. For 2023, the target was 3,500. The Government missed that by 61%. For this year, the target for affordable homes to be delivered by local authorities, approved housing bodies and the LDA is 4,400. At the end of quarter 3, only 1,297 had been delivered and it is highly likely the Government will miss its target again this year. Likewise, the first home scheme, which, of course, as the Minister will be aware, I do not believe is an affordable housing scheme but which is recognised as such in the legislation, was to deliver 6,000 purchases over three years but, in fact, has missed that target by 50%. There is also a real concern about the increasing cost to buy and to rent. Is the Minister not concerned by the low delivery rates, the missed targets and the increasing cost of these so-called "affordable" homes.
As I say, I am awaiting the quarter 4 figures to be verified but I anticipate 2024 will be the best year to date for the delivery of affordable homes by our delivery partners. We will continue to work with all of our partners to increase the delivery of affordable homes in any shape or manner that they can be delivered in.
Obviously, we will debate that matter when those figures are finally published but given that the Minister is operating from such a low base, to have the best year to date is hardly something to celebrate.
Let us look at the affordability in two cost-rental projects, both on public land. In O'Devaney Gardens, the cost of the so-called "affordable" rentals there will be just under €1,500 a month for a one-bed, just under €1,700 a month for a two-bed and almost €1,900 a month for a three-bed.
That is substantially above the rents being charged for existing renters in the private rental sector. Oscar Traynor Road is not much better. Let us consider the increased price of the so-called affordable purchases. In a scheme in Newcastle West, advertised by Limerick council only this week, the lowest entry-level price of a so-called affordable home is €361,000. If someone wants to own the home outright, it will cost €435,000 rising to €455,000 for some of the properties. That is more than double the actual price paid by people in Newcastle West, according to the property price register, for all homes sold last year bar one. Surely the Minister has some concern at the rising cost both of the so-called affordable rentals and the so-called affordable purchases.
Rents for cost-rental homes are set to cover the cost of delivery, financing and managing and maintaining the homes modelled over at least 40 years. Cost rents paid will vary between households and schemes and is dependent on the size of the home and the location but cost rental is a more affordable option compared with the pressures of the private market and will always be made available at least 25% below comparable market rents. Rents for cost-rental homes are already below full cost levels thanks to the effect of subsidy elements of funding those streams.
Public Inquiries
114. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice if he will establish a public inquiry into the death of a person (details supplied), as mandated by the Dáil on two separate occasions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12757/25]
This is my first opportunity to present oral questions to the Minister for Justice. I wanted my first question to be in respect of the case of Shane O'Farrell, with which the Minister is very familiar. The Minister moved a motion on the case previously, which was adopted by the House, calling for the establishment of a public inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Shane and the actions of State agencies in respect of it. Will the Minister now establish that inquiry?
I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling this question. I know how much pain the O’Farrell family have gone through since August 2011. Neither I, Deputy Carthy nor anyone else in the House can alleviate that pain, but what we can try to do is ensure that answers are provided to the O'Farrell family in respect of the issues of concern from that terrible evening.
It is important to emphasise that primary responsibility for Shane’s death rests with Zigimantas Gridziuska, the man who drove the car that struck Shane from behind, who failed to stop and remain at the scene and who subsequently that evening hid his car away from his home. As Deputy Carthy will be aware, he was prosecuted in February 2013 for dangerous driving causing death. He was acquitted. I know that is not the justice outcome that the O'Farrell family wanted but it is the consequence that we have to deal with and respond to. There were, however, issues of concern that I highlighted previously, as did Deputy Carthy. These were that the driver was on bail at the time, gardaí stopped his car one hour before the collision and he had previous convictions that should have triggered his reappearance before the courts. Those were the reasons I tabled that motion in June 2018. The motion was effective because it resulted in the Government changing its approach to the Shane O'Farrell matter and establishing a scoping inquiry. That inquiry took longer than most scoping inquiries and came back with a very lengthy report of 415 pages. This was much longer than I or anyone else expected. I cannot ignore the scoping report, but I will refer the recommendations contained within it to the justice committee, once that committee is up and running. I will keep my mind open in respect of the matter and the question the Deputy asked, but I cannot give him a definitive answer now.
I agree entirely with the Minister that one person alone is responsible for the death of Shane O'Farrell, that being, Zigimantas Gridziuska. However, at the heart of this case is the indisputable fact that Gridziuska should have been imprisoned at the time of Shane's killing. He was in breach of multiple bail conditions set by multiple courts. He had been stopped on several occasions by gardaí when there was an arrestable offence clearly taking place, including just a short time before Shane's death. The Minister has indicated that the O'Farrell family want answers. It is in the public interest that we get to the heart of why this individual was not imprisoned at the time. How do we get those answers for the O'Farrells? It is my belief that the only way those answers will be got is through an independent public inquiry. Does the Minister believe that there is scope or capacity within the justice committee to actually get those answers? I would contend strongly that there is not. If the Minister shares this view, then he should do the honourable thing and not delay this process any longer and establish the public inquiry that is required.
The Deputy has highlighted the issues of concern and he has correctly pointed out that not just the O'Farrell family, but the public is entitled to answers on these. The Deputy mentioned that the driver was on bail on charges of theft and possession of stolen property at the time of the collision. The Deputy also mentioned that Gridziuska's convictions for those theft offences in May 2011 should have triggered his reappearance before the courts. I cannot ignore the fact that, in the scoping exercise report, those issues were dealt with. I fully agree with the Deputy that I do not expect the justice committee to start conducting inquisitorial hearings. It cannot do so. I was on the justice committee as a member and as Chairman. However, what the justice committee can do when I send it the report is to look at the recommendations that are contained within. The Deputy and many others may not like the content of the replies provided in the scoping report, but they have to be considered. I come back to the point that I cannot ignore a report of 415 pages, but we need to have further engagement on it. The recommendations need to be assessed by the justice committee. I will keep an open mind on the Deputy's principal question.
There are two distinct elements here. One is the recommendations of the scoping exercise report. I agree that we should look at all of those and perhaps there is a role for the justice committee in deliberating on whether those are achievable. Every recommendation ultimately comes down to whether the Minister or another Minister decides to accept them. One of the recommendations is that there is no scope for a public inquiry. I fundamentally disagree with that recommendation. Just like any recommendation in any report, it can be discounted by the Minister if there is a just reason to do so. In my view, there is very just reason to ignore that recommendation and to pursue the democratic decision of the Dáil and establish the inquiry.
If the Minister decides to proceed with what I consider to be another stumbling block by reverting this issue to the justice committee, will he instruct his Department and An Garda Síochána to provide the justice committee with any documentation it seeks as part of its work in following up on any examination of this case and the report?
I do not want to interfere with what the justice committee wants to do, but if a request comes from it to my Department, I will ensure that careful consideration is given to it.
I have to make a broader point on scoping inquiries and reports. Generally, when there is a proposal in the House to establish a commission of investigation or a tribunal of inquiry, a scoping report is done in advance. We did it with the allegations of sexual abuse in schools, where Mary O'Toole SC prepared the scoping inquiry report. It took about three or four months and comprised around 40 pages. She said that there needed to be an investigation into those matters because she was not able to establish the detail of it. However, the scoping report we are discussing is different and I cannot ignore the fact that it says that there should be no further inquiry. I fully understand and appreciate the Deputy's political objective but he has to understand that other people could quite legitimately say to me that I was told not to set up a further inquiry.
I am keeping the matter open, but I cannot ignore the content of the scoping report.
An Garda Síochána
115. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Minister for Justice if he has any concerns about the fact that the latest intake of trainee gardaí are not fully vetted. [12760/25]
As the Minister is aware, the Garda Commissioner informed his Department last November that full vetting would no longer take place prior to trainees entering the college at Templemore. This sent shock waves across many organisations, including the GRA and other representative bodies, because the Garda do the vetting. If gardaí will not be fully vetted before they enter Templemore, how can standards be maintained?
I thank the Deputy for his question and for his interest in this important area. The question of Garda vetting of individuals who go on to become members of An Garda Síochána is an important issue. It is not like ordinary vetting where somebody wants to become a football coach or is involved with children because it is much more thorough. I am informed by the Commissioner that vetting of candidates is conducted by the Garda National Vetting Bureau in a centralised unit and that it is the most stringent vetting in respect of any role in the State.
The Deputy is correct to state that there has been a change in how the vetting has occurred, but it is not correct to state that people enter Templemore unvetted. I have been informed that there are three stages to the vetting process. Before somebody enters Templemore, stage 1 of the vetting has been completed. There are then stages 2 and 3, which are now being done during the course of the individual's presence within Templemore. The reason we did that is we wanted to speed up the process of recruiting members to An Garda Síochána. I am frequently asked questions about this and, before I was a Minister, I said that we needed to do more to speed up the process of recruitment.
One of the mechanisms by which recruitment was being slowed down was that the vetting process was taking too long. Instead, what will happen is people will be vetted at stage 1, they will go into Templemore, and stages 2 and 3 will be completed while they are at Templemore. The effect of that has been that, on 10 March, 201 trainee gardaí started in Templemore. When they are attested in December this year and when they are then out on the streets, they will have been vetted to the exact same extent as any member of An Garda Síochána who was vetted under the old system. This will not result in a situation where gardaí are patrolling the streets as attested members who have not been thoroughly vetted.
I know the Deputy's concern but it is not correct - this is my respectful response - to say that people are entering unvetted. They are vetted. It is just that the process of vetting is not completed until they are fully attested.
This is Comical Ali stuff. The Garda Síochána press office has stated: "... the highest standards for all ... Gardaí will be maintained. Vetting standards for Garda trainees remain the same." They do not remain the same. They are different. Similar to the housing statistics, this was done as a political ploy in order to ensure numbers got bumped up and trainees were taken in last December, which I pointed out last year. It is not the same standard. The Minister needs to guarantee on the floor of the House that people are not currently training in Templemore who should not be. Gardaí and their representative bodies, who are very concerned about standards not being maintained, have come to me from across the country on this.
We also have to think about the people who are training and working with trainees at Templemore. The people who enter Templemore need to be vetted to the same standard as they always have been. At the end of the day, the Garda does the vetting. If it cannot maintain those standards, what hope have we regarding everyone else? I have asked this question of every Department and agency throughout the country. Not one has come back to me and said that it is changing its vetting standards, but An Garda Síochána can. The public is not buying this. People are worried about it.
The objective is to ensure that, once people become attested members of An Garda Síochána, they will have been fully vetted. That will continue the way it did previously.
We need to look at the three stages of it. The first stage, which is done before anyone enters Templemore, requires all candidates on their applications to become trainees to complete what is known as a form B. This document is very extensive and involves requesting detailed personal information from candidates, such as details on any time they lived abroad and information on all extended family members, including family who live abroad and may have little or no interaction with the candidate. These checks can take the timelines for completion outside the control of both the candidate and the vetting bureau. That is the first stage in respect of vetting.
The second and third stages are done while the candidate is in Templemore. The second stage involves security checks and local vetting, which involves a short interview conducted by a sergeant or someone of higher rank in the candidate's local station. Stage 3 involves the Garda National Vetting Bureau making a final decision under the authority of the Commissioner. Once an attested garda goes out on the street, he or she will have been vetted to the same extent as previously.
What the Minister said is simply not factually correct. Garda trainees are going into Templemore who have not been vetted to the standard required. That is the bottom line. This was done last November.
The Minister is also failing to acknowledge the fact that unattested trainees are often training under supervision but are not fully vetted. The Minister knows that as part of their course they are out during certain phases and are not fully vetted. Trainee gardaí who are not fully vetted are out on patrol throughout the country. That is a fact. The Minister cannot deny that in the House. Gardaí of various ranks all over the country are disgusted at this and believe it is totally wrong.
The Department also fails to acknowledge this. Trainee gardaí are coming in who are not fully vetted and, in the end, they are told they cannot become gardaí. How much is that costing the State? The Department cannot answer that question, which I have asked. It is not able to answer how much it costs to train a garda in this country. If that is all accumulated, it is obviously a loss to the taxpayer. These people have access to a lot of information, training, uniforms, guns and arms. Many of them are very fine people, and I represent the constituency that includes Templemore, but they need to be fully vetted. If people need be fully vetted for Tusla, the HEA, education and everything in healthcare, they surely, in the name of God, need to be fully vetted for An Garda Síochána before they enter Templemore.
They will be fully vetted by the time they are gardaí.
Not when they enter.
What we are talking about, so people are aware-----
They can be on the streets unvetted.
-----is that part of the vetting process happens during the training process. The reason that is done is we are trying to increase the numbers going into An Garda Síochána.
So, standards drop.
We have a recruitment crisis.
Standards drop.
They do not drop.
They do.
What the public is concerned about is the quality-----
Give a guarantee.
Will the Deputy let me answer the question? What the public is concerned about is the quality of the garda on the street. Fortunately, the quality of the gardaí on the street in this country is excellent. They are fully vetted, more than any other official in the public service. They are vetted thoroughly. What is happening is we are changing the sequencing of the process. The reason we are doing that is to try to speed it up. Part of the problem is the fact that many people have spent time abroad. They have been in Australia and other parts of the world. Garda management have to find out about them when they have been away for two or three years. That takes time.
Trainee-----
Let me finish the answer. Rather than saying to those individuals that they cannot start at Templemore until we have thoroughly got information about them, we are letting them start and then getting the information. We are getting fully vetted gardaí at the end of the process.
They are on the streets unvetted.
Crime Prevention
116. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice the actions he will take to address the fact that the suspects for 40,348 crimes carried out in 2024 were on bail; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12758/25]
Many people were shocked - I certainly was - at the reply I received from the Minister that revealed that known suspects in 40,348 crimes carried out in 2024 were on bail. I submitted the question on the back of a number of high-profile instances where habitual offenders, including people who had repeatedly breached bail conditions, were subsequently convicted of very serious crimes. Will the Minister outline what actions he will take to address this very serious issue?
I thank the Deputy for his question. It is important that policymakers, including Ministers, keep a close watch on the law in respect of bail. I note the answer the Deputy got, which stated that 40,348 crimes were carried out in 2024 while persons were on bail. Like him, I thought that was extremely high. I then asked for a breakdown of a description of the nature of the crimes. Of the crimes committed while people were on bail, 20% were in respect of theft from shops. That is approximately 8,000 crimes. Five thousand were in respect of breach of bail.
Public order offences were 13.7% or approximately 5,000. There were 2,500 drunkenness offences and the simple possession of drugs was in the region of 6% or approximately 2,000 offences. As many of these offences are regarded as summary offences, they would not in the ordinary course of events result in individuals being remanded in custody when people are brought before the court. That is the truth of the matter. When we look at the nature of the offences, we see that many of them are to be prosecuted in the District Court. If people are brought before the District Court on a charge of theft, they obviously have to be remanded for the hearing, but they are not remanded in custody. The Deputy may disagree with that, but the reason they are not remanded in custody is that we already have a problem in our prisons and we would have another 10,000 people if we were going to remand in custody all the individuals charged with offences committed in 2024 that were minor offences.
I am fully aware of the significance of the Bail Act. In 1997, people said they wanted the courts to refuse bail in circumstances where they thought there was a likelihood that a serious offence would be committed. When it comes to people being charged with serious offences, especially violent offences, the presumption should be that bail would not be granted.
To be clear, no one is suggesting that every bail application end with a remand order.
Is the Minister satisfied with the extent to which adherence with bail conditions is monitored and enforced? I received another reply to a parliamentary question from the Minister on 25 February that revealed that, although people were suspected of committing more than 40,000 crimes in 2024 while on bail, there were only 4,146 arrests that year where there was reasonable cause to suspect the person was in breach of a bail condition. Does the Minister agree that the discrepancy between the number of crimes being committed while suspects are on bail and the number of arrests for breaches of bail conditions suggests there is a significant problem with monitoring bail conditions and holding those on bail to account for breaches of those bail conditions?
Serious offences committed while people are on bail should trigger my interest and that of other policymakers. The offences I outlined, including theft from shops, public order offences and drunkenness offences, are the offences committed by people on bail. With the greatest of respect to the Deputy, I do not think they are the issues he is concerned about. He is more concerned about serious offences.
The percentage of individuals who are now in custody and are not on bail has increased significantly in recent years. For instance, it is notable that of the 5,155 people who were in custody on 3 March, 20% were on remand. That is significantly more than in previous years. Since March 2015, there has been a significant increase in the number of people in custody. In the same period, the number of people on remand has increased by 112%, which reflects the approach of the courts in refusing bail where they deem it appropriate to do so. Courts are more in tune with the fact that they should not be granting bail in circumstances where they think it not appropriate. That is reflected in the figures.
I will go back to the Minister's original response where he repeated figures included in the initial reply to the parliamentary question in respect of the most common offence types carried out by offenders who were on bail. He mentioned public order, drunkenness, theft from shops, possession of drugs for personal use and criminal damage, which accounted for 59%. Will the Minister outline to the Dáil the detail of the categories that make up the other 41% of crimes for which no figures were given in that reply?
The number of crimes committed while suspects were on bail went up from 26,000 in 2016 to 40,000 in 2024. My difficulty with the Minister's answer regarding the progress that has been made through the courts in recent times is that it suggests that he is not committing to reviewing the operation of the bail laws, including changes to them that might be necessary.
Does the Minister agree that a real problem results from the fact that we simply do not have enough gardaí in our communities to be able to monitor all these things, particularly to monitor those who have been released on bail?
I do not have the information in respect of the Deputy's question on the other 41% and I apologise for that. If the Deputy asks another parliamentary question, that information may or may not be available. I am not sure at present.
I note what the Deputy stated about the increase in figures between 2016 and 2024. Our population has increased so significantly during that period that it is not surprising there has been an increase.
On reviewing the operation of bail and bail laws, I want to prioritise the introduction of electronic monitoring, which would make matters considerably easier when it comes to remanding people on bail as opposed to in custody. We would be able to monitor where they were. Bail terms and conditions are imposed and we would be able to ensure they are being complied with.
Regarding gardaí not being able to monitor breaches of bail conditions, if the Deputy looks at the statistics I gave him, he will see that breach of bail accounted for 13.8% of the 40,000 offences committed by people on bail. That indicates that the Garda is monitoring bail compliance.
Sentencing Policy
117. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Justice the progress regarding the term of review on the use of concurrent and consecutive sentencing guidelines for judges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12368/25]
My question is about the progress being made on the review of concurrent and consecutive sentencing. I have discussed the need for movement on this with the Minister outside the Dáil Chamber previously. It is not about locking people up and throwing away the key, but we need some common sense in the sentencing guidelines.
The Deputy will be aware that sentencing is a complex matter, but people want to see some consistency in sentencing. I want to see that as well. The mechanism by which we are seeking to achieve this was set out in the Judicial Council Act 2019, under which there is a procedure for the Judiciary to set out sentencing guidelines. I look forward to receiving those sentencing guidelines from the Judiciary, as they will improve consistency throughout the course of imposing sentences.
We also need to be aware that concurrent and consecutive sentences are options available to judges. Under our law, consecutive sentences can be imposed by the courts. In fact, the Oireachtas has mandated that, in certain circumstances, there should be consecutive sentences. For instance, in reference to Deputy Carthy's question earlier, if people commit a serious offence while on bail, the law dictates that they receive a consecutive sentence. That is provided for in the Criminal Justice Acts. It is also the case that, if people commit an offence while serving a sentence for another offence, for example, if they are out on temporary release, that should result in a consecutive sentence as well.
I appreciate the concern Deputies and victims and their families have when they see a concurrent sentence being imposed in respect of different offences. The message that goes out is that there was no real sentence for the offence committed against the victim because the person was already serving a sentence in any event. That is not what the law seeks to achieve. Judges sometimes look at the issues in terms of the totality of what occurred. In circumstances where there is one offence and a series of convictions in respect of it, concurrent sentences are probably appropriate. However, where the offences are separate, it is my view that consecutive offences are appropriate.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He outlined that there is provision in law for consecutive sentencing and that he is of the opinion that should happen for serious offences. However, in the recent case of Joe Drennan - a young man from near Mountrath in County Laois, where I come from, who was mowed down at a bus stop coming home from work - the driver of the car had 46 previous convictions. He fled the scene. He received a concurrent sentence, which means that he will not serve one additional hour in prison for the killing of the young man. That is shocking. Young Joe Drennan lost his life. His family lost him. There has been a strong campaign in the county to have this reversed. I welcome that the DPP is now appealing the decision.
However, while the Minister says the provision is there in law, it is not being taken on board in some of the courts. In a case like this where a person is up on serious charges, including shooting up a house, it is clear there should be concurrent sentencing and there needs to be clear guidelines on it.
I am aware of the tragic case of Joe Drennan. I am not going to talk about it, as I am sure the Deputy can appreciate. The matter is being appealed by the DPP to the Court of Appeal and it would be inappropriate for me to say anything in respect of it.
I will speak in general terms about where multiple offences have been committed. Sentences imposed in response to multiple offences can be imposed concurrently, consecutively or a combination of both. Offences committed while on bail, in custody or while a suspended sentence is in place attract consecutive sentences. That is provided for expressly in legislation. Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 states, as I said previously, that if a person commits an offence while on bail, the sentence should run consecutively. There is also section 13 of the Criminal Law Act 1976, which states that if a person commits an offence while serving a sentence, such as a suspended sentence, the sentence should run consecutively. More recently, the Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Act 2015 provides for consecutive sentences in relation to certain burglary offences. The law provides for it, therefore, but I appreciate and understand the Deputy's concern.
I thank the Minister for his reply. When we discussed this previously, he indicated that a review was under way or getting under way. While I accept that it is there in law and welcome the clarification regarding the 1984 Act, the Minister, who was until recently a practising barrister, will know from the courts that it is clear there is a consistency problem. He used the word himself and that is what we need to address here. Of course the courts need flexibility and need to be separate from the Oireachtas, but the Department has a responsibility to monitor what is happening at some level in the courts and where there is a complete breakdown in consistency and sentences that are off the Richter scale, such as in the Joe Drennan case, it shows we have a problem and judges need to be clear the sentencing needs to match the crime. That is what I am asking for.
In general, there is consistency throughout the criminal justice process when it comes to the imposition of sentences. We do not hear about it because it does not give rise to public controversy but consistency is very important. That consistency will be increased and improved when we see judicial guidelines being put forward by the Judicial Council. However, we need to recognise that sometimes - and I am not speaking about any particular case - judges make mistakes and that is why we have the appeals structure that exists. The appeals structure is there to correct mistakes that are made by lower courts. Thus there are systems in place to ensure that if there is a misapplication of the law by a court, it is corrected on appeal. I am very conscious of the responsibility we are asking the Judiciary to perform in respect of sentencing guidelines. I am especially interested in seeing that and the public will also be interested in seeing what the guidelines for certain types of offences are. Serious offences merit serious sentences. However, we must also recognise sentencing is complex. A judge must take into account a number of factors before imposing a sentence.