We have had a fair bit of airtime and a fair bit of discussion in this place in relation to the Government's plans to scrap the triple lock, and they are to end the triple lock, not to amend or adjust it.

I recall that in the committee we were told there was a great rush to try to move along with pre-legislative scrutiny in order to ensure that legislation would be ready. That was far from ideal; however, we on the committee did our best. We are still none the wiser as to what legislation has come out the other end. Perhaps the Tánaiste could give us an update.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 4 together.

The committee did a very good job. The timeline for pre-legislative scrutiny is set down by the Standing Orders of this House, to the best of my knowledge. The committee kept to those timelines and produced a comprehensive report, and I thank Deputy Ó Laoghaire and all members of the committee for their work on that.

As the Deputy rightly recalls, the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025 was published on 21 May. It consolidates, with amendments, the existing provisions of the Defence Acts 1954 to 2015 concerning the dispatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. The general scheme also proposes amendments to existing legislation to provide for the suspension of members of the Defence Forces to give effect to recommendations in the 2024 Ward report.

The pre-legislative scrutiny process of the general scheme was completed, as Deputy Ó Laoghaire rightly says, at the end of July. This process provided the Oireachtas committee with the opportunity to examine the heads of the Bill and to hear from and bring in many relevant stakeholders on the proposed legislation. I am, as I have said, grateful to all members of the committee. There are very good proposals within these recommendations. I say that sincerely. I am working through them with my officials - indeed, I went through quite a number of them this week - as the full Bill is being drafted.

Under the current proposals in the general scheme to amend the legislation, the requirement for a UN Security Council mandate will be removed. I again underline that the legislation in place allows members of the UN Security Council, by means of a veto or indeed threat of same, to bind this country's hands in its international peacekeeping engagement. Recent vetoes by a UN Security Council member on a proposed resolution for a full and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza last June, as well as the challenges evidenced over the summer with regard to the extension of the UNIFIL mandate to allow peacekeepers to southern Lebanon, are ample evidence of this. With regard to the latter particularly, in the event that the UNIFIL mandate were not extended, Ireland would have been in the position of having to plan to withdraw its Defence Forces personnel from UNIFIL immediately following the expiration of the mandate.

I believe it is untenable, therefore, for the Government to continue with this policy. I again state my strong belief that such considerations on international peacekeeping engagement should be within Ireland's exclusive sovereign control and that decision-making on this should be purely within the remit of our Government and our Oireachtas, which have been democratically elected by the people of this country.

I recognise, however, that in removing the UN Security Council mandate requirement there will be a need to strengthen the democratic oversight governing the ongoing deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas. Therefore, in parallel to removing the UN mandate requirement, text will be included in this Bill which will require that the mandate of future operations be consistent with, and adhere to, the principles of the UN Charter and international law. These principles are being refined to ensure appropriate legal effect as part of the drafting process.

I am interested in working with the Deputies on this. We will never reach agreement on the broad policy around this - I take that point - but I am determined to bring forward legislation in this area, as is the Government, and we will do that. I am, however, very willing to work with, and in fact very enthusiastic about working with, this House to try to develop an oversight mechanism to provide independent external assurance on adherence to these principles. I do not wish to speak for the committee, but from my rereading of the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the committee this week, I think the committee was teasing its way through that as well. I concede on the floor - not even concede but agree - that there is a need to beef up the legislation on that.

I intend to bring this Bill to the Government shortly - the Deputies will ask me what "shortly" means, which is a fair question; I expect it to be within this year - and for the debate in the Oireachtas to begin thereafter. This will provide - and we should provide - ample time to work through the legislation, and I commit to providing that time from the Government's perspective.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government has no desire to alter our policy of military neutrality. The amendments proposed will do nothing to change Ireland's traditional position of military neutrality, which has always been characterised by Ireland's non-participation in military alliances. Our engagement overseas will continue to be firmly grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international law and will, of course, require the consent of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Ireland.

This is an issue that has seen a fair bit of discussion recently. In the context of a presidential election and a presidential candidate, or our President, it is not an area in which they have executive power, but the nature of all presidential elections is that there is discussion about Ireland's place in the world, how we see ourselves and how we can best exercise influence internationally. The candidate who, in my view, articulated very clearly a vision for an Ireland that holds its own course and that is neutral, as a clear-eyed assessment of our place in the world and of how best we can use our influence, won a resounding mandate. Most opinion polls indicate very strong support not only for Ireland's policy of military neutrality but also for retaining the triple lock. The Tánaiste has talked a great deal about sovereignty. The greatest test of sovereignty in this jurisdiction is the Irish people. Would the Tánaiste consider putting a significant proposal that has constitutional ramifications to the Irish people?

The Government wants to get rid of the triple lock in order that it can send Irish troops abroad on EU or NATO-led missions. The Government will not tell us where it wants to send these troops. I oppose that. I defend our neutrality. I believe the majority of people do. However, I want to focus, at least initially, less on the substance of that but on the democratic question. The Government has refused, despite calls from many in the Opposition, to hold a plebiscite to allow the people to decide, so the closest thing we have to a view of the people is the presidential election. Neutrality was arguably the number one issue in the election, and there was a clear difference between the Government's candidate and the candidate I supported. Both said they supported neutrality, but the difference was that Heather Humphreys said it in the way the Tánaiste says it, which is to empty the word of any meaning. One candidate, Catherine Connolly, defended the triple lock; the other candidate opposed it. The candidate who defended the triple lock got 63% of the vote. That is an expression of people's will. The Government really has no mandate to proceed with this, particularly in the context of the promise to keep the triple lock being crucial in persuading people to change their minds in terms of the second Nice treaty referendum. People have voted for this effectively twice and the Government wants to get rid of it without allowing them a third vote.

The Deputies cannot pick and choose which mandates they like. I have a mandate - a very clear and a very large mandate - from the people of Wicklow and I have a mandate from-----

Not to get rid of the triple lock.

No, but I have a mandate to bring forward legislative proposals. I have a mandate to table draft laws, as do the Deputies opposite. I have a mandate to debate and discuss those laws, and my mandate is perfectly valid, as is the mandate of every Member of this House. The Deputies cannot pick and choose which mandates they like. We tend not to talk about the President in this House. I will not do so or talk about the President-elect other than to wish her every health, happiness and success as she prepares to take office. The Deputies should not over-interpret results from any election. Question No. 4 is a fascinating parliamentary question in that Deputy Murphy is deciding to attach motives to the Irish people. We have not seen this since de Valera had to look into his heart to decide where the Irish people stood. Deputy Murphy is deciding what motivated people to go out and vote in the presidential election, a very brave thing to do. I am not sure it tallies with any evidence we have seen from exit polling information that was published by Ireland Thinks. If we want to talk about mandates, one of the figures we should talk about is the fact that 70% of the people of Ireland who had a right to vote either did not vote in the election or chose to spoil their vote. Let us talk about that as well. I would not get carried away in making decisions on the result of a presidential election, which was resoundingly won by President-elect Connolly, and I wish her every success. We are beginning to see that Deputy Murphy will attach to the President-elect every view of every policy he wishes. The President-elect was very clear in the election campaign: I heard her say many times that she would have no role at all in the substance of the legislation. She will have a very clear constitutional role, which she will discharge with distinction, as every President of Ireland ever has done. That is my first point.

My second is that if we are on the issue of opinion polling - Deputy Ó Laoghaire made the point that the majority of people of Ireland do not favour the change to the triple lock - I do not have the data in front of me but I do remember seeing a poll in The Irish Times that was published only a number of weeks ago that showed opposition to changing the triple lock down and support for changing it up. I think, therefore, that the Irish people are well able to differentiate between military neutrality and amending our laws as to how we dispatch and deploy our troops overseas.

Opposition to this might have been up or might have been down, but if you lose a game 5-2 it is not last goal wins. At the end of the day, the bigger number is the bigger number.

I am not sure it was a majority, though.

The Tánaiste has made a couple of points. He is right: we cannot say the presidential election is the final word on this.

That is good.

However, only one political party - it was not his party - came to the last general election with anything even resembling a manifesto commitment that gave it any kind of mandate.

Deputy Murphy is right when he suggests there is a better way of defining public opinion. If the Government is willing - we are certainly willing - to put this to the people and have a clear question asked of them in order to get a clear answer in relation to this, I am quite confident as to what the outcome will be. The presidential election might be the best barometer we have, albeit imperfect and thrown in with a lot of other things. However, the Government has the ability for a more precise measurement of public opinion. Why not proceed with that?

The Tánaiste speaks about his electoral mandate, and there is no question about that. The basis of his party's mandate is its election manifesto, which referred to "preserving our long-standing policy of active military neutrality" and maintaining military neutrality. There was no mention of redefining that or getting rid of the triple lock. Therefore, the Tánaiste does not have a mandate for what he is trying to do. There was the vaguest hint and glance to making such a change in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, but it did not refer to repealing the triple lock. The Tánaiste's party made no such commitment. This is precisely the point. We are not claiming that the presidential election was a referendum on neutrality, pure and simple, but we want a referendum on neutrality. We want a referendum on the triple lock. We want the people to be able to decide. Why is the Tánaiste so scared of allowing the people to have their view and their say on this?

I would like to ask the Tánaiste about one point of substance. He repeatedly speaks about "the principles of the UN Charter", which are also mentioned in the heads of the proposed legislation. That is deliberate, is it not? The Tánaiste will not speak about a commitment to abide by the UN Charter or the articles of the UN Charter. Instead, he refers purely to the vague and broad "principles" of Article 2, which do not bind the Government to stick to international law.

That is a space in which I am willing to and wanting to engage. I fully accept quite clearly that we do not agree on the issue of changing the role of the triple lock. I think the Deputy's position is to leave things as they are. I do not say that flippantly. I think that is the Deputy's position. My position is that we are going to change it. I am very happy to have a conversation about the substance of the legislation in terms of how we build in a degree of external oversight of the commitments that the legislation gives in relation to the UN Charter. I am very happy to do that. I am also happy to tease through the detail that the Deputy relayed in terms of the specificity of the UN Charter and how the legislation can look at that. I do not believe we can run back to the Irish people with a referendum on every piece of legislation. This is not an attempt to change Ireland's position on military neutrality; it is an attempt to change how we dispatch peacekeeping troops overseas. We would be shirking our own responsibilities as legislators who are sent here to get on with the business of debating, and who are trusted by our constituents to do that in a considerable-----

The context is the commitments in past referendums.

To military neutrality, which has not changed.

No, to the triple lock.

The triple lock.

I ask the Deputies to allow the Tánaiste to answer.

I would like make a point about last year's general election. This gets mentioned a lot. In fairness to my predecessor, who is now Taoiseach, the process and the policy process of changing the triple lock was advanced in the previous Government. The Deputies will remember the comments of Micheál Martin in the previous Government. When we then went before the people - Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - we were clearly not indicating that we were going to change that position. We had only articulated it a couple of months earlier. This Government and the previous Government have been quite clear on this. I think a majority of Irish people will come with us in relation to this issue. I think they differentiate between that issue and the question of military neutrality, as they should because I am massively in favour of military neutrality as well. I welcome the recognition from the Opposition today that we are not going to extrapolate every policy issue for the next four years on the basis of an overinterpretation of the results of the presidential election.

We have been talking about the replacement of our Navy ships and upgrading our fleet for some years. Throughout it all our focus has been on multi-role vessels, MRVs, as they are the best equipped to do what our Navy does best in providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Are we now pivoting to multi-role combat vessels, MRCVs, as has been reported, which marks a shift away towards a more aggressive naval policy?

The short answer is "No". I was enquiring about this recently. I have seen some media speculation in relation to this. I have been honest with the House. A major opportunity and challenge for the Defence Forces is going to be to secure a multi-role vessel programme and the upgrading of that. That is where the focus is and will remain. I am happy to provide that clarity. My priority as Minister for Defence is to ensure the operational capability of the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service is maintained and developed further in order to enable the Defence Forces to carry out the roles assigned by the Government. The capital funding of €1.7 billion allocated to defence in the latest national development plan up to 2030 represents an increase of €600 million on the previous baseline of €1.1 billion. The revised capital allocations will enable targeted progression on key elements of our commitments to get to level of ambition 2.

The Commission on the Defence Forces specifically recommended a programme of naval vessel replacement under level of ambition 2 to ensure a balanced fleet of modern ships, including a multi-role vessel, is reached in the next decade. This recommendation has been accepted in principle by the Government. Preliminary work with respect to the consideration of this recommendation with the support of marine advisers is currently under way and nearing conclusion and will inform the next steps in this regard.

The Naval Service currently has a fleet of eight commissioned vessels. These eight vessels consist of two P50 class large patrol vessels, four P60 class offshore patrol vessels and two P70 inshore patrol vessels. Capital investment in the Naval Service vessel renewal and replacement programme is ongoing. The programme of works for the midlife refit and upgrade of the two P50 class vessels has been completed. Two P70 class inshore patrol vessels purchased from the New Zealand Government were commissioned into State service as LÉ Aoibhinn and LÉ Gobnait in 2024.

The Deputy will be aware of the challenges faced by the Naval Service in recent years, and to this end I have instructed the Defence Forces to develop a regeneration plan for the Naval Service which I expect to receive in the coming weeks. This will allow for the plotting of a path forward for the future direction of the Naval Service. It is not my intention to advance the procurement of a multi-role combat vessel, but rather to address the recommendation in terms of the multi-role vessel programme.

I am comforted to hear that we are not going to invest as a State in multi-role combat vessels because my key concern is that we have a long-established priority to acquire multi-role vessels, which give us a flexible fleet that is capable of surveillance and humanitarian functions. They are vital for maritime disaster relief, our capacity for peacekeeping and our ability as an island nation with a volunteer Coast Guard to respond to the needs of people in case of emergency. In delicate peacekeeping and humanitarian situations, multi-role vessels are much less likely to be met with resistance than an armed warship and have much more flexibility in the assistance that we can provide. I do not deny that we need serious investment in our Defence Forces, but we need to be clear on what we are trying to achieve because multi-role combat vessels would not deliver our humanitarian and disaster relief aspirations. They would limit us to a much more aggressive role at a huge cost to the Exchequer. We are currently unable to staff the ships that we have. Combat vessels are bigger and more expensive, require more specialised staff and are more expensive to run. I have not heard any discussion on the opportunity cost of going down that path. I am glad to hear that it is not on the agenda. The Tánaiste listed off some technical names of vessels. Will he clarify that none of those are combat vessels?

I am conscious when I read out the answers that a lot of these numbers and the likes are quite technical for people following this debate. I largely agree with what the Deputy has said. The replacement of the flagship LÉ Eithne with a multi-role vessel is what is provided for in the equipment development programme. It is also what is provided for in the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces. That is the plan. The equipment development plan is a living document. We continue to review it. We continue to update it based on the level of funding available, organisational priorities and timing issues. The Defence Forces are currently re-evaluating all their strategic equipment and infrastructural priorities to align with the revised capital allocation they have received. The Naval Service vessel renewal and replacement programme will be progressed in accordance with this. The Naval Service currently has a fleet of eight vessels. Four of the vessels are regularly deployed on maritime defence and security operations. These four vessels are the three P60 class vessels and the LÉ Aoibhinn, which is a P71. All four vessels conduct patrols on a rotation basis. I will set this out to the Deputy in a note, but the answer to her closing question is "No, they are not".

None of them are combat vessels; excellent. We need to have a candid conversation about sub-sea infrastructure and the shadow fleet because that is the other context in which this arises. We could have the finest combat vessels available patrolling every inch of Irish waters, but most of the sub-sea infrastructure we are talking about also runs outside of our territorial waters. In those situations, we would be completely unable to do anything to protect those cables, no matter what kind of ships we had. We know this because it has happened on the edges of the waters of NATO member states in the Baltics. While combat vessels may provide an opportunity to virtue signal to other EU countries about our willingness to take part in an arms race, the reality is that our capacity and fleet is best served by equipping them for humanitarian and disaster relief and surveillance. MRVs can monitor cables and foreign vessels and can also save lives on a scale that MRCVs cannot. It is comforting to hear that there are no plans to invest in combat vessels. I will be holding the Tánaiste to account on that.

I thank Deputy Gibney very much. The point she raised around undersea cables - we may have a question on it later - is an important one because we need to have a better awareness of what is happening below our seas.

The MRV programme can do that as can the radar programme. The rollout of that radar programme is priority one, two and three. It is a programme that will start to be rolled out in 2026. It will be fully rolled out by 2028, to have a better awareness of what is happening below our waters because we would all have an awareness, a very quick and clear awareness, if something went wrong in that space as well, and not just here but right across other parts of Europe. We have an obligation to ourselves and to the global community, particularly in our exclusive economic zone, EEZ, and to co-operate and collaborate in that space. I am very conscious, cognisant and satisfied all of that can happen within the current capital upgrade programmes being planned by the Defence Forces and the current levels of operation at an EU level that are consistent and in line with our military neutrality.

Question No. 3 in the name of Deputy Seán Crowe is being taken by Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

The Tánaiste's previous answer tailors well enough with this question. One of the key priorities in how we tailor investment in our Defence Forces is our naval capacity and our understanding of what is in Irish waters. That is probably the number one issue of concern for us and for our neighbours. The most important piece of infrastructure is ensuring that we have that full radar picture, which is something we have been missing for a very long time. Can we get an update for the rollout of that and a timeline for completion?

On this point we agree. A key priority for Ireland and our Defence Forces, our Naval Service and our country has to be to ensure we have as best an understanding as possible of what happens in our seas, below our waters. A key priority for me is to ensure the operational capacity of the Defence Forces is maintained and developed to get us to the level of ambition 2, LOA2, as defined by the Commission on the Defence Forces, CODF.

The CODF recommended the development of a primary radar capability to ensure that Ireland can maintain a complete "recognised air picture" and that this should be an immediate and top priority. There are three elements to the military radar programme: the land based long range primary radar; the ground based air defence, GBAD, systems, to include a counter-unmanned aerial systems, C-UAS; and the maritime ship-borne radar.

This programme of work is ongoing and I am pleased to tell the Deputy that good progress has been made. When fully delivered, the recognised air picture will incorporate this suite of military radar systems, which will have the capability to detect all aircraft traversing our airspace, including any that may be operating with their transponders turned off. Full delivery of the programme will be complex because it needs to be rolled out in a sequential area. This has been prioritised with a target date of 2028 identified in the detailed implementation plan. That being said - and this is an important message for everybody to know - elements of this capability will be rolled out in phases, starting in 2026. Our radar capacity will increase from 2026 and will be fully completed by 2028.

My Department has engaged with a number of countries, including all EU member states, to ascertain their interest in supporting Ireland to deliver this capability. Based on the responses received, earlier this year I directed my officials to commence bilateral discussions with a small number of countries, with a view to assessing options for delivery. These bilateral discussions have now concluded and technical assessments of the various options for delivery of the entire programme are very close to finalisation. I anticipate that this phase of the programme will conclude before the end of this year, with the Government decision before the end of this year as well.

The primary radar system and the full radar picture is one of the cornerstones of the transformation of the Defence Forces and it is crucial we get it right, not least because it will cost a substantial sum of money. Can the Tánaiste give us a sense of what kind of sums we are talking about because it is important we apply lessons learned from other public contracts to this project? There was a discussion yesterday on the relationship between Britain and Ireland. There was a discussion about security. One of the points advanced was military expenditure. People talk about the amount spent but it can be spent well or can be spent badly. Obviously, it is essential we achieve value for money in delivering this.

The Tánaiste talked about the naval radar picture and the requirement that it would be ship-borne. Do we have the capacity, in terms of our current fleet, to deliver that? Similarly, do we have the capacity with the air picture?

Yes, we do. I take the point on the value for money or good value for the taxpayer. I will update the House once we get to the point where we place contracts and the like. Obviously, securing value for money is important. The only priority above that is securing this. That is why I think wise decisions were taken in years before my occupation of this office to put in place structures where we could engage with other governments in other countries, particularly, but not exclusively, in the European Union, which may have the ability to provide this equipment to us in a quicker manner. Speed and value are absolutely key priorities.

I expect to be in a position to update the Government on this very shortly and once I have done that, I will be very happy to update the Deputy, the House and the Oireachtas committee. All capital expenditure associated with the delivery of the programme will be met from within the capital allocations 2026 to 2030, which were recently agreed as part of the review of the national development plan. We are at a critical stage now in terms of this project and, pending a final decision on the options of delivery, it would be premature for me to make any further comment on likely costs. Training needs will be determined and delivered as part of the delivery of the programme also.

The cost is a consideration. It is vitally important that value for money is achieved but also that it is of the highest standard and it is secure. We talked about whether the naval and the aircraft capacity existed. There is also the issue of personnel. Will there be a requirement for additional specialist personnel in order to operate this? The Minister talked about it being rolled out in parts. Can he give us a sense of the sequence of those? What are the most advanced parts or the earliest parts of that to be delivered? This is a vitally important piece of infrastructure. There are very real threats in our seas. How we address those when we know about them is a different and an important debate but first, we need to know. We need to have the picture but we do not currently have that. So, it is vitally important. Can the Minister give us a sense, from a personnel point of view, whether additional specialist personnel are required?

The information available to me is that the existing personnel's training needs will be the priority. Training needs will be determined and delivered as part of the delivery of the programme and will encompass equipment level training, including maintenance, as well operational and tactical level training. Training and upskilling our current personnel as opposed to additional specialist personnel is the information available to me. On sequencing, obviously I want to be transparent and helpful but also respect, as we all do, the security-sensitive deliberations in relation to the rollout of any programme being rolled out to increase our own national security. Planning and preparations for our Presidency of the European Union are well under way and the phased early delivery of elements of the military radar programme in 2026 may form part of these preparations. A key focus, and a key early focus of the programme, should be our counter unmanned aerial system capability. We have a structure in place to keep the Oireachtas committee up to date and we will do that in a sensitive and appropriate way.

We have had discussions regarding a number of these issues. We have talked about the triple lock and that relates to the deployment of our troops abroad. A lot has been said about the world that is changing. It is my view that the Defence Forces were allowed to go significantly backwards by successive governments. That is true in terms of equipment but it is also most true in terms of personnel. We are well below establishment. It is not acceptable and it needs to be addressed quite urgently.

The first thing I will say, and I know we will all join in this, is that debates about triple locks and all that are terribly important but in the here and now there are men and women being deployed overseas. I had the honour of reviewing the 127th battalion that is heading out as part of the UNIFIL mission to southern Lebanon imminently, this month. We thank the 362 men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann for that. I make that point because we get to talk about things in the abstract here. These are 362 men and women who are going to contribute to our very long, decades-old peacekeeping involvement in southern Lebanon.

On the broad issue of recruitment and the impact of recruitment and numbers for the security and defence of the country, our programme for Government sets out a number of commitments relating to national security as well as priorities for recruitment and retention in the Defence Forces.

In this regard, the previous Government approved a move to a Permanent Defence Force capability equivalent to level of ambition 2, which requires us to get to an establishment figure of 11,500, including a civilian component, by 2028. To support this and the implementation of related measures, the recent budget provided a record allocation of €1.49 billion for the defence sector, an increase of €145 million on 2025. These funds include, among other things, a provision for the recruitment of a net 400 additional Permanent Defence Force members per annum.

In order to meet Government targets, the Defence Forces are making concerted efforts to ramp up recruitment. Last year, for the first time in a long time, there was a stabilisation in numbers, with 708 inductions to the Permanent Defence Force and discharges of 674. That was the first year for a long time there was a net increase, albeit small, in personnel. I am pleased to say that signs for the year to date give cause for further positivity - I was briefed on this by the Chief of Staff yesterday. Application numbers already exceed the total for last year and discharges are significantly fewer than this time last year. There are many more people applying and fewer people seeking to be discharged.

We have tried to introduce a range of measures to support and bolster Defence Forces recruitment, and perhaps I can come back on them in a moment.

I welcome an increase in Defence Force numbers, given that this has been a matter of discussion in these Houses for a number of years in terms of the recruitment and retention crisis. The advance we are talking about is quite modest given the context. We are far from the commission on the future of the Defence Forces. We are below establishment and the minimum acceptable level of personnel.

I want to focus on officers. Governance in the Defence Forces is a key factor when it comes to national security. There are 330 officers in the Defence Forces with less than five years' experience. That points to the fact that we have found it difficult to retain experienced and well-trained officers who can aid and assist in training young officers in the interests of national security. A key aspect of this is retention. A specialist pay review was recommended by the Commission on the Defence Forces in 2022, which has not been established, to provide an ongoing review of the application of existing specialist pay rates and allowances and to make recommendations where adjustments are required. This has yet to be seen and would have retained highly skilled members of the Defence Forces.

By the end of April, the Defence Forces will have submitted to me, and I will publish, a workforce plan that shows how we get to where we need to be in terms of personnel by 2028. That will require a number of pinch points to be addressed. We are now seeing real interest in joining the Defence Forces. We can all take a sense of encouragement from the fact that people want to wear the uniform of Óglaigh na hÉireann and the numbers this year will be up on last year because more people are seeking to join and fewer people are seeking to leave the Defence forces this year than last. We still need a step change, and I fully accept that.

We have introduced a range of measures. We have increased the maximum age of recruitment and the age of retirement. We have extended private secondary healthcare to all personnel. The application of the provisions of the working time directive, subject to certain exemptions, has been a very welcome development. We have brought about increases to the patrol duty allowance payable to Naval Service personnel. We have extended the Naval Service tax credit for a further five years. We have extended the service commitment scheme for pilots in the Air Corps to air traffic control personnel. We have engaged external expertise to support recruitment into the Naval Service. We have introduced a professional structure payment allowance. We have seen a significant-----

Very often, people want to serve. The Minister spoke about the quality of the people he inspected recently. The men and women of the Defence Forces are our greatest asset. Even at times when payments and allowances were less favourable, people wanted to join.

The difficulty is that many of these people are very capable, skilled and experienced and are the kind of people private industry wants. In many instances, the challenge we have faced is that highly qualified and very capable members of the Defence Forces, due to their difficulty in making ends meet or the pressures they are under due to the cost of living crisis, see more attractive pay and conditions in industries such as pharmaceuticals, medtech and other areas.

In terms of the retention of officers and personnel more generally in the Defence Forces, we need a specialist pay review to be established. We need to review the post-2013 pension arrangements and training establishment.

I am very open to the idea of a specialist pay review. I said that to the Deputy on a previous occasion. We will examine that in the context of the next national pay agreement, along with the workforce plan. The Deputy put forward a set of challenges as to why people sometimes leave parts of the public service. I put forward a different set of reasons. I referred to full employment, a vibrant private sector and foreign direct investment, which provide a huge opportunity for people with skills to work in a variety of different areas.

On the broader issue of pay, we cannot say it enough to people considering joining the Defence Forces that we should debunk some of the myths. I am not referring to myths put forward by anybody here, but recruit pay in the Defence Forces on completion of training, which takes around 24 weeks, now starts at €41,880. A school-leaver cadet on commissioning starts at just over €45,000, rising to over €51,000 after two years. Where a graduate joins, the pay rate on commission begins at over €51,000. Challenges undoubtedly remain, but we are now seeing a record level of expenditure and pay because the personnel in Oglaigh na hÉireann are our best assets.

This question has been asked twice already, so it is good that I have a clear insight. My question refers to the preparedness within the Defence Forces to respond to cyber and physical interference. I will discuss how we should strengthen our interconnectivity in terms of not only data but also electricity. The Minister knows I want our system to be decentralised and for there to be private wires. I want an update on the readiness of our Defence Forces.

I thank Deputy Heneghan for continually raising this matter since his election to the House. My colleague the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration has the lead role for cyber security and the Department receives inputs in the security domain from An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. The National Cyber Security Centre, which, as is appropriate, is now part of that Department, is the authority responsible for cybersecurity in the State, including incident response, cyber resilience and information provision.

To develop this cyber defence capability, the Defence Forces have established a joint cyber defence command. This new command will be capable of conducting the full spectrum of cyber defence operations at home and overseas, to enhance national cyber defence resilience and contingent capabilities. Additional staff have been approved to resource cyber command in achieving its initial operational capacity.

Turning specifically to the offshore infrastructure to which the Deputy referred, my officials continue to engage with the Departments of Climate, Energy and the Environment and communications on the protection of Ireland’s offshore infrastructure. The Defence Forces routinely carry out monitoring and surveillance of Ireland’s exclusive economic zone, EEZ, using our Naval Service assets and Air Corps maritime patrol aircraft. In addition to at-sea monitoring, the naval operations command centre in Haulbowline carries out remote monitoring 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I look forward to visiting it this month to be further briefed and view its work.

Challenges with putting ships to sea have been well documented and were discussed in the House earlier. This year, we are seeing the benefits of a number of initiatives I have overseen, such as the patrol duty allowance, with the number of patrol days to date having exceeded the total number of patrol days completed in 2024. We have already seen more ships at sea for more days at sea this year than we did over the whole of last year. The Naval Service continues to maintain a constant presence in the Irish EEZ.

Earlier this year, I approved the Defence Forces' participation in the common information sharing environment, CISE. This will support better monitoring and surveillance of growing threats at sea and will help improve the Defence Forces maritime domain awareness. In other words, we exchange information with other European countries. This will be of significant importance to our maritime security.

I thank the Minister for the update. Saturday is the one-year anniversary of the death of former Senator Billy Lawless, on the day the general election was called. I want to put on the record of the House that his previous PA is working with my team. In her words, there is not much to say about him but simply that it was a huge pleasure to have worked with him and he was one of a kind. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

This issue is important because the economy and our infrastructure now depend heavily on undersea cables and other hidden networks. As an island, we are uniquely vulnerable, something I know the Minister is well aware of. Therefore, the ability of the Defence Forces' ability to respond to cyber and physical interference is a matter of national security and resilience.

The private wire piece will help in this regard when paired with long-duration energy storage, which we are discussing in the climate and energy committee. It will strengthen our national security by reducing our dependence and decentralising our current energy system. It will create micro grids across the country in specific areas with hospitals and schools that need energy, in case we ever come under attack or suffer damage to our cables, although we hope we never will.

I thank Deputy Heneghan for reminding us of the forthcoming anniversary of Senator Lawless, a man I had the honour and privilege of knowing and serving with in these Houses. He was a man that my predecessor, Enda Kenny, was honoured to appoint to Seanad Éireann. He served with distinction in the Seanad but he also served with distinction beyond the Seanad, both as an incredible businessman and an incredible advocate for Irish people in America, most particularly in Chicago. I know he had very close links with the Obama Administration. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis. We think of him and his family and the Deputy's member of staff at this time.

The point the Deputy makes is right and I will ask my defence advisers to give further consideration to that. I ran out of time the last time but I did want to say that we have just announced the signing of a multimillion euro contract with Thales DMS for the provision of towed sonar capability for the Defence Forces. That, too, is going to make a big difference in terms of our security because the new sonar capability will now be used on Irish naval vessels to monitor activities in the Irish exclusive economic zone, in particular in the vicinity of our subsea communication cables or our gas pipelines. As I said in response to an earlier question, work is also ongoing on the development of radar capability. I will keep the Deputy up to date.

I thank the Tánaiste for his kind words. Back to the same point, I am delighted to hear about the investments going into protecting our offshore infrastructure. However, in relation to the benefits of private wires not only will it help the investments the Government will be making but it will allow critical infrastructure, businesses and communities, to generate and use power locally. By creating those semi-independent energy hubs, they can then operate off the grid if our grid is ever physically attacked or there is a cyberattack. By decentralising the supply and removing the single points of failure of our offshore supply, private wires make Ireland's overall energy system more resilient, more secure and far better. It will also help with the housing crisis and it will help with the cost per unit of electricity because we are increasing the supply and reducing the demand. Everyone will benefit from this. I met with the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, last week regarding my Bill and I hope to get support from across the House.

I thank the Deputy for his work on this and for his advocacy and the time he is putting into it. The Government largely agrees with his position on this. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, leads for the Government in terms of the private wires legislation. I will ask that he keep in close contact with the Deputy in relation to this. The Deputy is right, however. I have been briefed on this and I, too, am convinced that this assists in relation to housing, energy costs and our ability to attract investment into Ireland. At a time when energy, energy security and energy supply is under such pressure - not just here but across the European Union - we need to be innovative, flexible and able to work in a number of different directions to try to get to where we need to get to. I will ask the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, to continue to liaise closely with the Deputy.

I ask the Tánaiste to outline the way in which Ireland will balance its policy of military neutrality with increased engagement in EU defence co-operation during the 2026 EU presidency, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I thank Deputy Burke very much for the question. It is really timely. The first thing I want to say is that Ireland is never going to recuse itself from conversations around defence and security because conversations around defence and security, as the Deputy rightly knows and advocates for, are not the same as conversations about changing Ireland's military neutrality, which we have no intention of doing. When I sit around tables at Europe, there are a number of other countries - not a majority; far from it - that are also militarily neutral. A country can be militarily neutral and take military and defence seriously. In fact, I would argue that there is a greater obligation on you to take the defence and security of your own country and people seriously when it is not militarily aligned as part of any military organisation or alignment.

Our Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2026 is going to be a major national undertaking. It is a key focus for the work of Government because Ireland will have an opportunity to shape and manage the EU’s agenda for that six-month period. Within the European Union, it is accepted that security and defence is a national competence and that any decisions as regards EU defence arrangements, including any deepening of EU co-operation, does require unanimity. It is within this context that Ireland will balance our policy of military neutrality while holding the Presidency.

It is the prerogative of member states to make arrangements which serve their own national defence needs, which, in Ireland's case, is our policy of military neutrality, as characterised by our non-membership of military alliances and our non-participation in mutual defence arrangements. Holding the Presidency obviously will not change that policy.

Let me be clear, however, the Government remains committed to broadening and deepening our international security engagement as well as our domestic efforts to ensure the security of our country and to allow Ireland to contribute to efforts towards ensuring international peace and security. We are a strong proponent in this country of the important role the EU can play in support of international peace and security. It is essential, therefore, that Ireland remains fully engaged in all processes and contributes fully to the development of policy in order that we can influence its evolution and that our Defence Forces can continue to benefit from this engagement.

Our participation in EU defence initiatives will continue to be guided by a principles-based pragmatism, ensuring that any co-operation respects our sovereign decision-making and legal obligations and will be on a strictly voluntary, project-specific basis.

There are two issues I want to raise. One is in relation to the increase in numbers we require in our Naval Service. It is a big challenge. What progress can be made on that over the next 12 months? It is extremely important from our point of view and from a European point of view.

The second issue concerns a scenario where we had peace in Ukraine. While we all want it, and it would be great if it was in place prior to us taking over the Presidency of the EU, in relation to giving leadership, we would not be able to deploy our members of our Defence Forces there in a peacekeeping mission without a UN mandate. That then would leave us in a very difficult position. On one hand, we are giving leadership within the EU but on the other hand, there is not a mechanism for us to provide personnel to assist in a peacekeeping role in Ukraine should that arise.

On the Naval Service, I am pleased to say I look forward to visiting Cork later this month and, hopefully, visiting Haulbowline with the Deputy. The latest figures available to me are that personnel in our Naval Service stood at 800 at the end of September, which is up from 719 at the end of last year. I am also pleased to say that at the end of September, we had received 2,357 applications for the Naval Service, which is an increase of more than 400 on what we received in the totality of last year. There is a big body of work to do, which I do not dispute in any way, in terms of our Naval Service. I have instructed the Defence Forces to provide me with a regeneration and growth plan for our Naval Service. It is encouraging to see those numbers in terms of recruitment, retention and applications into the Naval Service this year.

On Ukraine, the Deputy is right that Ireland can only partake in peacekeeping missions if they are mandated by the UN. We will not recuse ourselves from that conversation. One would imagine if there was to be peace that was agreed, perhaps that would be possible but I do not know. In the meantime, however, we are continuing to engage with the EU military assistance mission, EUMAM, initiative where we have been providing training to several hundred members of the Ukrainian defence forces.

It is an issue that is going to come up very much. If there is not peace in Ukraine by the time we hold the Presidency, the issue of Ukraine will be very much to the forefront in any EU discussions. We will then be required to provide leadership in that area. I think the Tánaiste will accept that it will be a challenge on the basis that no matter what happens, we cannot go in there and provide support and help without a UN mandate. As we all know, a number of countries have a veto in relation to any UN mandate and that has not happened for quite some time. We need to really have a discussion on what our role is in this whole area when we hold the Presidency. We need to plan for a number of different scenarios so that we can carefully manage it and at the same time provide the leadership that is required at European level.

Certainly, when we hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the second half of next year, our priority from a foreign affairs point of view in relation to Ukraine will be to work very closely with the European Union and with international engagement processes, including with the United States. I intend to work very closely with Ms Kaja Kallas, our EU High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in trying to bring peace to this horrific conflict. The Deputy is quite right that there is a huge amount of talk and effort put into trying to bring about peace. Unfortunately, that all looks somewhat like folly when we see Putin showing no interest in peace. I believe from a European Union point of view, and this will be Ireland's position, we need to continue to apply economic sanction on Russia to get Putin to change his nexus or his calculus in relation to his illegal aggression. Therefore, it is about continuing to work at a European level to try to maintain that European unity and solidarity in relation to Ukraine. Then, if we get to a point of peace, obviously, Ireland will be wanting to participate in conversations about how we can play a constructive role. However, I think the big challenge, if the war has not ended by then, is going to be to try to bring about peace and be a strong voice in terms of ending the conflict and using the levers at the EU's disposal to maximise that pressure.

I am sorry but there is just one final thing I want to mention and that is the respect that Ireland and the Irish Army has.

I have been in two conflict zones where the Irish Army was. It is important we build on and maintain that and work in particular at a European level on it.

In August 2024, Fr. Paul Murphy was the subject of a heinous attack at Dún Uí Mhaoilíosa in Galway. It was an appalling attack. It underscored the vulnerability of those serving in the unique and vital role of military chaplains to our Defence Forces. I am seeking an update - I know it was discussed recently - on the issue of representation for chaplains working for and paid by the Department of Defence.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 69 together.

I join Deputy Ó Laoghaire in paying tribute to Fr. Paul Murphy. I have had the honour of meeting him on a number of occasions. He is currently serving in and possibly about to return shortly from Lebanon, where he has gone with our troops, which underscores the Deputy's point about the distinction with which our chaplains serve. Fr. Paul showed huge bravery and courage that night. I recall talking to him in the aftermath of that horrific attack. I was really taken by his absolute Christianity and humanity. He is quite an incredible person. The Deputy's point is entirely right. Without wanting to shock him, this is one I fully agree with him on.

I acknowledge the excellent work undertaken by our chaplains. I am in no doubt about the importance of their work in providing pastoral care and maintaining the morale of members of the Permanent Defence Force, most particularly when they can be under difficult or testing conditions while serving abroad. The contributions and sacrifices made by Defence Forces chaplains over the years are widely recognised and appreciated by the Defence Forces, my Department, the Government and the people of this country. Chaplains are not subject to military law, other than when accompanying members of the Defence Forces on active service. Chaplains are responsible for the pastoral care of members of the Defence Forces. Up until now, they have been appointed to a military installation by their bishop or religious superior after consultation with the head chaplain and following approval by the Minister for Defence. With regard to chaplains and their representation, I have asked for proposals to address this urgently. I said this at the RACO conference in Mullingar in recent weeks, where it was one of the issues highlighted. This needs to be resolved. I intend to resolve it once I have received proposals from my officials in the next few weeks. I am happy to engage with the Deputy.

Perhaps there is not a great deal more that can be added to that. Fr. Murphy, in particular, is regarded with great affection and trust by members of the Defence Forces. He responded to that attack with great courage and a great deal of grace as well. It is an important role. This was discussed at the RACO conference. As outlined, the legal advice is that chaplains are not members of the Defence Forces but it is difficult to reconcile that with the reality that they wear the uniform, they are employed overseas and they are remunerated by the Department of Defence, as well as other elements. The objective of RACO is that they would receive the allowances, protections and entitlements afforded to all other members of the Defence Forces such that in practical terms, chaplains would be members of the Defence Forces even if legally that is not the case. There are examples in others sectors. School chaplains are represented by the INTO, so there is a precedent.

I agree entirely with the policy principle and I will work with the Deputy and everyone in this House to fix it. I am very clear on that. To flag some information that may be of use to the House, we probably will need to change legislation but we are legislators and there is no reason we cannot do that. At the moment, chaplains are free to join almost any union or representative association of their choice - the Deputy mentioned one example - with the current exception of the military representative associations, RACO and PDFORRA, hence the problem. The law applicable to representative associations is outlined in the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990. Section 1 of the Act defines a member in this context as "an officer, non-commissioned officer, private or seaman of the Defence Forces". RACO is limited in law to representing officers of the Permanent Defence Force and chaplains are not classified as officers so they cannot be represented. That is the legal issue and where we have to fix it. I am clear that we need to work together on it. I have asked for proposals from my officials within the next few weeks and then we will work out the quickest way of bringing forward and changing any legislation that may be required.

As I said, there is not a great deal to add. If it is being worked on, that is welcome. Please keep us updated. It was suggested that a defence amendment Bill may be in the pipeline. I cannot say I will vote for it but I might vote for that section. Please keep the House and the committee updated. I appreciate it is not possible in the current legislative framework but it is logical and welcome that that be addressed.

I agree.

This is going to be a challenging area for this and every jurisdiction. I know work is being advanced. Returning to the area of specialist personnel, it is an area that is going to be crucial. Will the Minister provide an update on developments? I know some specialist staff have been taken on. I think we determined previously that the cybersecurity command has been established. Will the Minister give an update on the next number of actions in that area?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 174 together.

As recognised in the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces and accepted by the Government, the Defence Forces need to be capable of delivering military effects across the cyber domain. To this end, my Department published a high-level action plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. This included recommendations relating to the Defence Forces' cyber defence functions. As a result, the Defence Forces have established a joint cyber defence command. This command will be able to conduct full-spectrum cyberspace operations to robustly defend against cyber threats, support Defence Forces operations at home and overseas and enhance our national cyber defence resilience and contingent capabilities.

A Defence Forces cyber defence strategy 2024 to 2027 was published last year. This strategy sets out a comprehensive roadmap to ensure that our Defence Forces achieve operational capability in the new domain. To give effect to this strategy, Defence Forces specialists have been assigned to the operation of this unit. I very recently approved a new Defence Forces officer to that role at the higher rank of brigadier general level. In addition, my Department engaged with the Public Appointments Service to recruit civilian cyber specialists to embed them in the joint cyber defence command. It is intended that such posts will be filled as soon as possible. We are funded to fill them; we are just going through the recruitment process. I am satisfied that from a defence perspective we are now on a positive trajectory to ensure that this new cyber defence command unit is well positioned.

We published the high-level action plan in relation to the Commission on the Defence Forces. This included recommendations to create a joint cyber defence command that should manage Defence Forces IT services, CIS and cyber defence. It recommended that we update and publish the cyber defence strategy in line with best international practice and that we provide for additional specialist personnel at part of a joint cyber defence command managing cyber defence, defence IT services and CIS. All actions have been progressed. We now need to build on that in the time ahead. To ensure the new unit has the appropriate support infrastructure, my Department approved the development of a dedicated IT operations and cybersecurity block in McKee Barracks through the refurbishment of an existing building. McKee was chosen as the location to consolidate a number of current operations and provide the necessary high-end infrastructure requirements to support future operations in the cyber domain. The project is at design stage. The design team was appointed in June. The project will cost around €1.9 million. It is proposed to procure a construction contract by way of a restricted tender competition. This facility will provide for the increasing recruitment needs in terms of space of the joint cyber defence command.

We welcome the progress that has been made. A lot more personnel will be needed over time, particularly when you look at the scale of personnel envisioned in the Commission on the Defence Forces. We could do with some clarity on the relationship between the cybersecurity command and the National Cyber Security Centre. It was previously answerable to the Department of communications. It is now in the Department of justice and home affairs. I am open-minded but is there any danger of having too many cooks? Is there a clear understanding? I would imagine that if the National Cyber Security Centre is located in the Department of justice, the primary responsibility for cybersecurity policy therefore rests with the Department of justice.

Operationally, what does that mean? Is the national cybersecurity command answerable to the cybersecurity centre or what exactly is the relationship?

It is a good question. Let me get a detailed note to the Deputy to fully set it out because there have been changes to this area. The decision to relocate the National Cyber Security Centre to the Department of justice is a good one. It is something I have advocated for for quite a while. There are very good people in it but I never felt it was an appropriate fit in the Department of communications because security is always an issue led by the Department of justice. The idea that some element of security would be led by a Department other than the Department of justice or Defence did not make much sense to me.

The Department and Minister for justice lead on cybersecurity and national security; that is clear. Obviously, the Defence Forces and the Garda have specific roles and they feed into the National Cyber Security Centre. Regarding command control and who the structures within the Defence Forces are to answer to, it is the normal military chain of command. At political level, we have also recently established a national security ministerial council, which I am a member of and the Taoiseach obviously chairs, as well as the Minister for justice. That enables us to bring things together at political and Government level.

I know I am over time but the Deputy asked previously, we have assigned 19 Defence Forces specialist posts to the joint cyber defence command to start this and we are also currently seeking to recruit ten civilian cyber specialists.

That is welcome. There are still multiples of that envisioned under the commission on the future of the Defence Forces. Off the top of my head, it was about 300 but that is from memory so I might be wrong on that.

We are in a fortunate position that the intelligence elements of the Defence Forces and the Garda have a good working relationship but that is not necessarily the experience in every jurisdiction and should not be taken for granted. Similarly, in this regard, it should not necessarily be taken for granted. We have to work towards ensuring the relationship between cybersecurity command and the cybersecurity centre is good but also clear and defined. I do not need a further response beyond that but that is important. It is also probably important we have a greater sense of precisely the relationship, the chain of command and the various responsibilities of the two bodies, both of which are very important.

I agree with that and I am satisfied the chain of command is quite clear. It is an appropriate thing for me to provide the Oireachtas or the Minister for justice with a written clarity on that and I am very happy to do so.

In light of the disastrous effects of Storm Éowyn in January, can the Tánaiste make a statement on the preparedness of the Defence Forces in the event of further extreme weather events?

I thank the Deputy for the question, which is important and timely. It was an issue many of us in this House as constituency TDs were grappling with in trying to support our communities in the run-up to and the aftermath of the horrific Storm Éowyn, which had a devastating effect on many parts of the country, most particularly perhaps the west and north-west.

As the Deputy knows, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Browne, and his Department are the lead Department for preparing and responding to severe weather events but the Office of Emergency Planning, under my Department, assists and provides support to the lead Departments during emergency events. I chair the Government task force on emergency planning and I have made it very clear that lessons identified from recent events are to be incorporated into future planning and resilience to minimise the impacts of climate-related emergencies on our communities. To this end, the Department of housing has completed what it calls the lessons learned process following Storm Éowyn. My colleague, the Minister for housing, Deputy Browne, published the lessons learned report on Storm Éowyn last month. The report highlights the necessary response actions taken by the National Emergency Coordination Group and details recommendations considered necessary to try to build on the strengths of the existing co-ordination structures, while also acknowledging the need for continuous improvement with a specific emphasis on community support measures and strengthening the resilience of our critical infrastructure.

Turning to the role of the Defence Forces, as the Deputy will be aware, they are not the first responders in either the preparedness or the recovery phases of events. Their role, when called upon, is to assist civilian authorities in dealing with the various challenges that can be present. In the context of recent weather events, the supports provided by the Defence Forces included: the provision of helicopter flights carrying ESB personnel in order to identify the extent of damage to the affected network; the collection and distribution of generators from Dublin Airport to sectors that had been worst affected; and the making ready of accommodation for ESB crews involved in restoration works with the network if needed.

The Defence Forces continues to stand ready to assist in all emergency scenarios as part of a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach at both a national and local level.

The Storm Éowyn review makes it clear the most prolonged impacts were felt in counties on the western seaboard, including Mayo, where access was cut off, in some cases, for days. Power outages were widespread and vulnerable people were isolated once communications and electricity failed. The review also acknowledges real progress with expanded generator capacity from Uisce Éireann, strengthened community support centres and, crucially, the roll-out of additional satellite communications to protect the emergency response when the networks collapse. Has the Department carried out a technical assessment of the Defence Forces' storm and post-storm readiness, particularly their availability of trained personnel, engineering assets, off-road mobility and the speed with which they can be deployed in rural and isolated counties, such as Mayo? Is the readiness now aligned with the new communications and resilience investments made since Storm Éowyn?

I agree that what worked well during a very difficult storm was the investment in community. We saw it in our own counties and constituencies where there had been investment in sports facilities, community facilities and vehicles. The ability of those local assets to be deployed and put to use stood up very well. I noticed, as would the Deputy, how many GAA centres, changing room facilities and all that were put to use.

What is absolutely needed is national leadership and co-ordination and I do not shirk this at all. During these events, we become so reliant on the local community response. I made this point recently in government and I will make it again today that it is very important that as well as the national plan that we see county-by-county plans. What happens if a council hears a bad storm is going to hit Wicklow or Wexford? What actions are taken, what do Wicklow County Council and Wexford County Council do, and how is that co-ordinated? That is the next piece. Good work is going on on that. Every county is meant to have its own plan but that is important. Satellite facilities are very important. We saw how dependent we have become on that.

With regard to a security review, there is the Office of Emergency Planning which has funding from the European Commission and support from specialists in the World Bank to conduct a comprehensive review of Ireland's emergency management approach and this is expected to be concluded by the end of the year.

I really welcome investment in Defence Forces. I will never forget when I was canvassing in Arklow and I went to the house of a young soldier who had come back from Lebanon after six months. I went there out of respect because I was called by community leads, who had a little function for him. He had come back from the Lebanon after six months, as I said, and I think he was in the 124th regiment. I could not get over how young he looked but it was the reaction of his parents to seeing him. We can never underestimate that. As somebody said to me, when somebody joins the forces, their family joins the forces. We can never underestimate what these young men - these young Adams - and women are doing for our country in keeping the peace abroad but also what they mean to their communities. He joined the force because there was a man, Jim Ford, around the corner who was there and he was his idol. It is very important the Tánaiste continue the investment into the Defence Forces and personnel.

I fully agree with the Deputy and thank him for saying that.

I was in Custume Barracks last Friday for the review of the 127th battalion, which is being deployed this month. I have done many of these but I was very struck by exactly what the Deputy said - the youth. I met a young 19-year-old man who will be the youngest person deployed. I was also struck by the man I met with his ten-month-old baby and his partner. He will be away for that child's first birthday and for Christmas. This is the sacrifice the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann pay and their families pay. It is also fascinating when talking to them that so many have a family tradition. I meet the young man or woman and I meet the grandfather as well; it is that level of service. I always make the point of paying tribute to the men and women who serve with such distinction in Lebanon and other parts of the world but also the families who sacrifice a huge amount always but particularly at important moments like Christmas where there is an empty chair at home. That is why it was important that we took the decision to establish a new office of veteran affairs this week because we owe a duty to those who have served with distinction, not just while they are wearing the uniform but in the aftermath of that too.

I continue to be deeply concerned about the level of staffing in the Naval Service. I ask for an update on the operational capacity of the current staffing levels of our naval vessels and the timeframe for recruitment to ensure the operation of all existing vessels.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 30 together.

I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Naval Service, as of 30 September 2025, the latest date such figures are available, is 800 personnel. This is up from 719 personnel at the end of 2024. Let me be honest and say that the establishment strength is 1,094. We are below the establishment strength and we need to get to that number.

The Naval Service currently has a fleet of eight vessels. Four of the vessels are regularly deployed on maritime defence and security operations. These four vessels consist of three P60 class vessels as well as the LÉ Aoibhinn, with all four vessels conducting patrols on a rotation basis. Any decision to deploy additional vessels on maritime defence and security operations is made by the military authorities.

Challenges in the recruitment and retention of personnel in the Naval Service are well-documented and a wide range of recruitment and retention initiatives have been introduced to address these. These include: an increase in the maximum recruitment age to 39 for those roles that had a recruitment age below that, and to 50 for direct-entry officer specialists; an increase in the mandatory retirement age to 62; a doubling of the Naval Service patrol duty allowance after ten days; the extension of the Naval Service tax credit for a further five years; the application of the working time directive across the Defence Forces in January of this year, subject to certain exemptions; and the extension of the provision of private secondary healthcare to all members of the Permanent Defence Forces. There has also been significant progress on pay with the most recent increase paid in August of this year.

Recruitment is presently ongoing through a wide range of pathways, including general service recruitment, re-entry schemes and eight Naval Service-specific direct entry competitions.

Applications for the Naval Service have been very strong this year - I met the commodore yesterday - with the total number of applications received as of 30 September being 2,357, which is 400 more than was received in all of last year when the total was 1,917. Recruitment to date for 2025 has been robust, with 150 inductions to the Naval Service as of 30 September. This is 80 more than the same period last year and 53 more than the total achieved for 2024.

In addition, significant growth in specialist recruitment has been achieved. Since taking up this role, I have learned very quickly that specialist recruitment for skills needed to get a ship to sea is very often the pinch point. As of 30 September, there have been 16 direct entry inductions into specialist roles in the Naval Service, which is the highest number in five years. Some challenges undoubtedly remain but significant progress is being made on a number of fronts. I thank those behind this work in the Naval Service. It is my intention to visit Haulbowline this month. Perhaps this is something we could arrange for the defence committee to do in the new year as well. It would give members the opportunity to engage directly with the Naval Service at the base in Haulbowline. I have also directed the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence to publish a joint plan on Naval Service regeneration and growth. I expect to also receive that this month. Once I bring that to Government I will be very happy to brief colleagues and engage with them on it.

I thank the Tánaiste for the detail in his reply. He mentioned the difficulty in hiring specialists. A total of €250,000 has been spent this year for external contractors to service naval vessels due to the lack of trained personnel. In August, we read a report that the €300 million project to purchase Ireland's biggest ever naval ship is in the doldrums, as senior Defence Forces personnel seek a more combat-orientated vessel. I am unapologetic in wanting to see, as I am sure the Tánaiste is, an increased naval presence given the threats in our waters. With the level of interest shown by 2,357 applicants, will we get to the establishment strength of 1,094 over the next 12 months, or is there still a way to go to meet that number?

The Naval Service is of particular importance to us as an island nation. It is essential. We talked about the full radar picture earlier. It is crucial that we have the capacity. It is unacceptable that we have had a situation over the past year and a half that ships have been put to sea without a functioning main gun because of inadequate personnel. I raised the issue of artificers earlier, and marine engineering officer teams are operating at roughly half strength. This is resulting in increased workload, added responsibilities and declining morale. This potentially runs the risk of some of those personnel, even adding further to the problem, by departing from the Defence Forces. In some of those critical specialist areas, the numbers remain critically low. This remains the case and has real operational implications and personnel implications. Along with the full radar picture, it is perhaps the most pressing need from a national security point of view to ensure that our naval capacity is brought back to something resembling an acceptable level.

I agree with much of what has been said. We need to invest more in our Naval Service and we are doing so. Crucially, we need to do things, namely, increase the number of people in the navy and we need to increase the capabilities and infrastructure of the Naval Service. Work is under way on both fronts. This year will see a significant increase in patrol days at sea on last year. It will see more people in the Naval Service this year than last year. This has already happened. It will see the highest increase in direct entry in five years. That is under way. With decisions made this year, in 2026 very important radar capabilities will be rolled out. A lot of good work is ongoing. I do not say that in relation to the Government but rather in relation to the work being done by the Defence Forces and I thank them.

Deputy Smith has asked me an honest and fair question about whether I am satisfied we will be able to get to the establishment figure of 1,094. Perhaps I could extend the question on to LOA 2. I am satisfied we will be able to continue to increase the numbers and that we are on an upward trajectory. More interventions will be needed to have a step change. That is why I have asked the Chief of Staff to produce a workforce plan by the end of April, which I will then publish and share with Members. This will show how the Defence Forces believe we can get to the figure of LOA 2 by 2028, which is 11,500 people overall, broken down between the Air Corps, the Navy and the Army. It will identify the pinch points. Some might be on our side regarding policy and some may be on their side in terms of training capabilities. We will have this plan by the end of April.

I appreciate the Tánaiste's candour in terms of the numbers going up, but we may not be able to meet the establishment figure. I hope that we will and we really need to strive for it. The Russian shadow fleet as a huge threat and our undersea cables are very vulnerable. Our neutrality is best served by being able to stand on our own two feet and to engage with our allies on our terms rather than having to rely on the likes of British armed forces or the Royal Air Force in our skies. This is where we need to get to and we can only do that through investment, recruitment and offering a career that is financially rewarding and rewarding on a skills level so that people feel they are part of something bigger, which our Defence Forces actually offer. However, we are still far behind where we need to be. A lot of the improvements will come from actions that have been outlined and more. We also need to be framing this differently at a political level to attract people into the Naval Service.

I agree with all that has been said by Deputy Smith. I will also flag the issue of cadets. We spoke about cadets and subsequently officers in the Defence Forces as a whole a short time ago, where serious challenges exist. In the 63rd naval cadet class, six cadets commenced training but only two were commissioned. The remaining four withdrew before commissioning, citing the extended service commitment associated with naval officer training as the primary reason for their departure. The length of these undertakings needs to be reviewed as well as the terms and conditions. We need a mixture in the Naval Service. We need to ensure there is an adequate number of personnel as a whole. We need to ensure that there are enough cadets, from an officer's point of view. We also need to ensure that the specialist staff are there to ensure that ships going to sea are safe. A ship and the personnel required in it is a machine in several respects and each part is necessary. We do not have enough of hardly any of the parts at this point in time, particularly specialist staff.

Regarding the shadow fleet, I also remain concerned, as do European and international counterparts. As we continue to sanction Russia to get it to end its brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, these sanctions need to capture the activities of the shadow fleet.

What I would say, and say to those outside this House too, without commenting on important national security issues, is that we are obviously plugged to a range of structures in terms of information exchange and working with others on monitoring situations. We have our ships at sea and our Air Corps. We made a decision, as the Deputies know, to join an information exchange system this year, which is really important for exchanging information with European counterparts on what they might see in their sea heading in our direction and vice versa. We will have a new national maritime security strategy published shortly and over 300 submissions have been made to that.

Recruitment is very much going the right way. Last year was the first year in quite a number of years we saw any stabilisation or increase in the membership of the Defence Forces. This year we will see a significant improvement on that. What I said to our Chief of Staff yesterday is that in and of itself it is not going to be enough. This is a view he and I share. We are going to have to look at what more can be done. We have established a major training centre that will have huge capacity by 2027, I think, in that it will be able to take in 1,000 recruits a year. We need to ensure all the pinch points are addressed.

Regarding Deputy Ó Laoghaire's point, the encouraging thing is there is huge interest now in joining the Defence Forces. Whether it is the Air Corps, the Naval Service or the Army, the number of people saying they want to join is going up and we need to make sure we have processes in place to speedily respond to that in a very competitive market for attracting people. I have outlined to the House a number of measures we have taken to try to make such a career more financially attractive. I accept there are issues with cadet pay. I addressed this at the RACO conference and I am committed to my Department engaging with the Department of public expenditure and representative bodies on that matter.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Callaghan as an gceist. SAFE, which stands for Security Action for Europe, is an EU instrument designed to provide member states with up to €150 billion of loans backed by the EU budget to provide financial assistance to member states to support their urgent public investments in defence, increase production capacity, improve the availability of defence products and address capability gaps. Ireland supported the adoption of the SAFE instrument and is availing of possibilities available under the SAFE regulation which will allow our country to realise our ambition more quickly and more efficiently. I am determined to provide for the development of a full spectrum of Defence Forces capabilities that will bring Ireland in line with other similar-sized European countries when it comes to defence and security. The Government continues to invest significantly in defence through our national budget. We saw an increase in capital funding to €1.7 billion. The funding represents an increase of 55% on the figure for the previous five years or €600 million. This increase in funding will be utilised to address long-standing capability gaps, modernise core infrastructure needs and support the delivery of defence responsibilities.

In the first instance, I have agreed that the Department of Defence should leverage the common procurement opportunities offered under the SAFE regulation as much as possible, so we have decided to opt in to the common procuring under that regulation. By procuring jointly Ireland can achieve lower prices, quite frankly, than we could if we were procuring alone and we will not be competing against other member states for limited resources and we should be able to access additional capabilities more quickly. That is part 1 of the regulation. With part 2, the question is whether we want to draw down loans under the funding mechanism. A decision was taken in conjunction with the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation not to draw down funding via the loan mechanism at this time. However, I have engaged and I expect a second round of calls to be made about that, so we do not rule that out at all. We have prioritised very significantly increasing our capital and current budgets for defence. That is where we are putting our initial resources. We are using the procurement mechanism to jointly procure while keeping the option open to opt in to a loan or funding mechanism at a future date.

I thank the Tánaiste for his response. It is very important to acknowledge the marked increase in our defence budget. We are making good progress and it is really important that this momentum should continue. I mention the second part of the SAFE regulation, which is the loan. One way I would have liked to have seen this momentum continue was through availing of the SAFE loan. It was a loan that was very competitively priced and had a long maturity and for me it is a missed opportunity. I understand fully the logic of not wanting to borrow money when we have a very healthy surplus thanks to the work and commitment of the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe and Chambers, but this loan had other advantages too. It would have really bolstered Ireland's commitment to European solidarity and security, especially in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and increasing threats to our critical infrastructure, including undersea cables that are vital to Ireland and the EU's digital economy, but also to our democracy.

On the joint procurement under SAFE, we have already opened up the contract for the supply of integrated modular body armour systems to other member states, so we are now providing opportunities for other EU countries as well. This means the work of doing more together, co-operating and playing our part in SAFE has started.

On the loan facility, if we think of a domestic household, the credit unions offer very favourable rates but if people have a load of money sitting in their own savings accounts, they do not go down to the credit union to borrow. That was the decision we made in the first instance. I want to be clear as Minister for Defence and as a coalition leader that if money is not forthcoming at the pace needed to get to LOA 2 and deliver for the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉíreann and for national security, we absolutely reserve the right, which I intend to activate, to go back and have further engagement with SAFE so we do not take ourselves off the pitch in relation to this in any manner or means. However, our collective priority was to maximise the amount we get into our own capital plan through the money we have in this country and that is where we have put our energy in the first instance. That said, I certainly do not rule out, and have had conversations about, further SAFE calls from a borrowing point of view that may happen in the future which we may well avail of.

I thank the Tánaiste. That is very reassuring to hear. The logic of creating the SAFE regulation was to ensure EU money stayed in the EU to support and encourage European enterprises to be developed with the long-term goal being to strengthen Europe's industrial and technological base. At a recent defence committee meeting, the Department of Defence said that out of the €340 billion spent on defence purchases by European countries, 80% of that went outside the EU. It is to be applauded, therefore, that the EU is working in this way to ensure our industries and economies will benefit from the necessary increase in defence spending across the Union. There is no doubt that in a small nation like ours the opportunities for economies of scale in procurement are greatly increased by us joining other defence forces across the EU for procurement purposes. As the Tánaiste has said, we get better value for the State's money and equipment can be delivered more quickly too.

What measures is Ireland taking to ensure our SMEs are promoted to other member states as being open for business and part of SAFE procurement options to ensure Irish SMEs have the opportunity to join international consortiums and secure opportunities in high value sectors?

The Deputy is entirely correct the benefit of being able to jointly procure is real. It is real in terms of speed and value for money. She is also right that if we have learned anything over the recent period with a war on the Continent of Europe and the turbulent trade environment, it is that being more resilient as a European Union and the opportunities that gives us in terms of our security and defence - but also those economic opportunities to produce equipment within the European Union - are real. I am currently in discussions with the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment on how we look at the mandate of Enterprise Ireland to enable it to assist Irish SMEs that may well be able to do more in this space and wish to do more but perhaps have not been covered by the existing Enterprise Ireland mandate. There are huge opportunities for Irish businesses at a time when Europe is going to be spending a lot more in this space. I will ask the Minister to keep the Deputy updated on that too.

I thank the Deputy. As he will be aware, in January of this year the blanket exemption from the Organisation of Working Time Act for Defence Forces personnel was removed and most Defence Forces personnel now enjoy the protections of the Act. Due to their specific nature, a number of activities are exempted from the provisions of Act and compensatory rest periods and other protections were agreed for personnel undertaking these activities. Those protections for exempted activities formed what the Deputy refers to as strand 2 and are encompassed in a letter to the representative associations.

A number of strand 2 measures have already been implemented, including the provision of one return commercial home reunion flight to Ireland in respect of an operational tour of duty of six months, where the security assessment by the military authorities determines the individual cannot avail of leave in-theatre.

In addition, enhanced Wi-Fi services have been put in place in United Nations post, UNP, 2-45, which is used by UNIFIL. I am further advised that military management is continuing to progress the remaining protections set out in the strand 2 communication. I have directed that this body of work be concluded without delay. Those measures requiring additional funding beyond existing resources are to be addressed in line with the normal Estimates process.

Most people understand this and want our Defence Forces to be able to avail of the working time directive. Most people will also understand that there are times when those in the Defence Forces cannot avail of elements of that directive. That issue can arise when overseas, for example. What compensatory measures can we put in place? The flight home is one example. That is now in place. The upgraded Wi-Fi in the UNIFIL premises is another example. I have directed that military management now conclude the advancement of the remaining measures in strand 2 as quickly as possible.

Among the concerns of the representative associations is that, while this has been negotiated and agreed at the top level, there has been no audit of the provision of services that are currently lacking and no new bespoke budget has been created to start delivering these provisions or services. Any improvements that are being delivered seem to be somewhat haphazard or delivered by local engagement. The representative associations do not seem to be aware of any budget, plan or direction being provided despite having asked. Will the Tánaiste address those concerns?

There has been extensive consultation with civil and military management and with the Defence Forces representative associations with regard to implementing the working time directive for members of the Defence Forces and the associated proposals for a legislative framework. We have a conciliation and arbitration subcommittee on the working time directive. This is a matter for formal consultation with the representative bodies. I thank PDFORRA and RACO for their constructive and proactive engagement. My Department and I are absolutely willing to engage with the representative associations on any outstanding matters around implementation through this subcommittee. I highlight that operationalisation is a matter for military management, which I know will take this seriously. I understand that a meeting of the working group subcommittee is due to be held shortly. On foot of the Deputy's question, I will suggest that this be scheduled as quickly as possible and that this subcommittee becomes the forum through which the outstanding matters can be progressed with the representative bodies.

The Tánaiste mentioned Wi-Fi as one of the things being looked at but there are other deliverables, including additional or increased bottled water and rations for overseas locations and improvements to laundry and recreation facilities across Defence Forces locations at home and overseas. Perhaps something in that regard could also be looked at.

I want to see this body of work completed quickly. I am really proud of the work that was undertaken and the measures that were put in place in January that finally removed the blanket exemption from the working time directive for the Defence Forces. That is an important recruitment tool and it is an even more important retention tool. It is also an important recognition of the important work done by the Defence Forces and the need to protect our Defence Forces personnel. Obviously, there was complexity in introducing the working time directive for our Defence Forces, including the Army. As a result, alternative compensatory measures were put in place. Good faith now needs to be shown by all sides in bringing this to a conclusion as quickly as possible. I will certainly use my own leadership and interest to get us to that point.

The next question is a grouped question and we will not have time for it so we will move on to questions to the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment.

I ask the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment about the reforms to the energy market he is considering to reduce high energy costs. An interim report from the national energy affordability task force was published earlier this week. It was a disappointment to many because it identifies some of the well-known problems in Ireland's dysfunctional energy market but offers no solutions. Households are facing a fresh round of price hikes just as the Government rips away supports. They need action. This seems to be a tick-box exercise to distract from the fact that there is no intention to tackle the energy rip-off.

Deputy Ahern should not really have given way.

I thank Deputy Daly. First, this is an interim report. It outlines a lot of actions that are to be taken. Many have been taken. It was published in advance of the budget so that we could look at the short-term measures we could take. We acknowledge the increased energy cost pressures on businesses and households and commit to bringing forward measures to contain energy costs and, importantly, to also tackle energy poverty.

We have already acted on that commitment. The 9% VAT currently applied to electricity and gas has been extended to 2030, resulting in a saving of approximately €100 per annum for the average household. The fuel allowance has been increased to €38 per week from January 2026. That equates to an increase of more than 15% and will provide an additional €140 to over 460,000 households during the annual fuel allowance season. As the Deputy may know, eligibility for the payment has been expanded to include those in receipt of the working family payment, approximately 50,000 extra households. These are targeted support measures.

The budget provided a record capital allocation of €558 million for the SEAI. That is for its retrofitting programme and energy upgrades including solar PV. It supports the delivery of our national retrofit programme, which has retrofitted nearly 260,000 homes already. That is a permanent measure. It is an €89 million increase on last year's budget allocation. That means more funding than ever is now available to make homes warmer, healthier, more comfortable and less expensive to heat. These are permanent changes. Analysis carried out by my Department and the SEAI indicates that a household can save between €750 and €1,120 per annum by making changes to their house through the retrofit programme.

I recently met with the four largest energy suppliers and, following these constructive meetings, the suppliers committed to ensuring that hardship funds and focused measures will now be in place for any customers who find themselves in difficulty this winter.

One of the frustrating things about the report from the steering group is that it is just an interim report. We have been told there will be a roadmap. If you were to be cynical, you would say that we first had a report and will now have a roadmap that will not be published until some time in 2026. It is really the destination that we are looking for. The report reaffirms what we have been saying for a long time, which is that no more than lip service is being paid to the crisis and that, because the energy credits were ripped away, energy bills are set to soar.

The Minister mentioned energy bills. According to the report, energy bills will reach €1,900 with a real risk they will rise again, given what we saw over the summer. Our energy prices are already some of the highest in Europe. Net electricity prices are the highest while gas prices are the fifth highest. Households pay, on average, €350 per year more for electricity and €150 more for gas. There has been a spate of price hikes across the summer. Will the Government consider reintroducing the supports?

I have detailed some of the initial supports, which are targeted at households that need them. The retrofit programme is critical in helping us to decarbonise and making permanent savings for households and businesses. That programme will ratchet up even further. We established a task force in June this year. I always said there would be an interim report in advance of the budget to inform budgetary measures for this year.

That is not all of the work required. Energy prices are too high. There are reasons for that in Ireland. We are an islanded nation with a dispersed population. We need to invest further in our grid, which we discussed last night during the debate on the ESB Bill. We need to continue to expand renewables to have cheaper, greener energy in our system. We are doing well on that. About 42% of our electricity generation last year was through renewables but we need to expand that further, and indeed we will.

I will look at the structure of the network charges. There is a conversation in Europe on the spark gap and the fact we tag retail prices across Europe to the wholesale gas price, even though we are expanding our renewables. That is a European conversation because energy costs across Europe are a real issue for households and businesses. We are committing to doing everything we can to stabilise and bring prices down.

I am glad the Minister mentioned the discussion he is having with the energy companies. Many of them say they had to put up prices due to the network charges, but network charges only rose by about €29 this year. At a recent meeting of the climate committee, the justification for the price hikes by, for example, Energia came under scrutiny. There are concerns that these are being used as an excuse but we in Sinn Féin introduced legislation to enable the Government to hold energy companies to account and it was rejected by the Government. There is no point in sitting down with energy companies, who not only have to make profit this year, but have to make increased profit next year and the year after that, without proper structures to hold them to account and challenge their narrative that it is all due to the war in Ukraine or to network charges. They should be held to account and have to justify their price increases year on year and month after month.

I think we agree this is an issue. I know this is an issue and the Government is aware this is an issue. We have already taken measures, which I outlined in my initial response, but we have to go further.

Work is happening at an EU-wide level. We have to look at the electricity market design and the Regulation on Wholesale Energy Market Integrity and Transparency. They are matters I have raised at European Council meetings. There are discussions at European level.

We need to expand renewables and ensure the households that need assistance get it. Energy credits could not be sustained into the future. Supports worth €3.5 billion were given. I would rather invest that money in structural reforms. We are putting that €3.5 billion into equity in ESB and EirGrid to enable them to leverage to invest further in our grid and deliver projects like the North-South interconnector, which is absolutely needed for resilience and to drive down energy prices in this country. We need that investment in our grid but I assure the Deputy that those who need assistance will get it. I have met the energy companies directly. A number, like Electric Ireland and Yuno Energy, did not put up their prices but they have re-established the hardship funds at my request to assist households that need assistance most.

We are in the teeth of a climate and biodiversity crisis. An initiative the last Government took was to commission a land use review to understand how to optimise land management in this country. Has the Minister received the phase 2 report of the land use review? Why has it not been released yet? When does he plan to release it?

I thank the Deputy. The programme for Government, Securing Ireland’s Future, recommitted to the national land use review. The first phase, led by the EPA, was published in March 2023 and focused on evidence gathering.

The final report for phase 2 - the report the Deputy referred to - is entitled A Living Land and has been received by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Heydon; the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan; and myself for consideration. I was also briefed directly on it and met Geraldine Tallon, chair of the oversight group, who carried out some excellent work. I thank her for the work she has done.

The purpose of phase 2 was to compile an evidence base and to present a framework to inform and support policymakers like us and landholders in decisions about future land use in the context of achieving Ireland’s agricultural, socioeconomic, climate and environmental objectives. As part of the review process, the citizen engagement working group proposed that there should be a focus on what can be learned from existing and emerging place-based pilots and programmes. The review highlights learning from multiple excellent examples of creative and inspiring community- and farm-level projects that are addressing and delivering on environmental and socioeconomic objectives.

Analysis of national and international best practice is a key feature of this report. While A Living Land is not an articulation of Government policy or strategy on land use, given the many economic, environmental and social considerations to be balanced when considering land use, the report will inform and support future considerations. The report also outlines the importance of Government leadership in leveraging the role of State-owned lands to achieve integrated land use objectives and the role that public bodies can play in this.

I am working with ministerial colleagues with a view to publishing the report very shortly. I expect to publish it in advance of the end of this year. It is a detailed report. There is very good work in it and practical examples that we could scale up across the country.

I am glad to hear the Minister will be publishing it. His predecessor as Minister for the environment described it as the most important project in the previous programme for Government. It is vital that it be released. I am not quite sure why the Minister is holding on to it. It is a report designed to inform policymakers and I am not sure whether the brains trust the Minister has put together are the only ones who should be looking at it. I do not know why it has not gone to the Climate Change Advisory Council. It asked in September of last year for it to be completed. It could be sent to the Oireachtas committee. It could and should be scrutinised by every stakeholder.

Phase 1 of the land use review discovered that 78% of land in this country is held by private landowners. To the extent that we want to manage and plan how our land is used strategically, we have many people to bring with us. It is important they be brought into the process as soon as possible.

I assure the Deputy I am not sitting on the report. It deserves scrutiny and that actions be taken from it. That is the work I am doing with the Minister, Deputy Heydon, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan. When we publish it, we will be able to show some exemplar projects in this country. Geraldine Tallon and her team looked across Europe at community-based, land-based projects and examples in Ireland came to the fore. Our job is to scale this up. I would like to see this go to the Oireachtas committee. It would be a good idea for the committee to look at and scrutinise it. The phase 2 report can guide us all as policymakers with regard to real community-based, land-based initiatives we can take.

The Deputy mentioned the 78% of landholdings in private ownership. When you look within the report, you see that the survey of land ownership is quite incomplete. That is not a criticism of the work done but it is about getting the data. One would think that if 78% of land is in private ownership, then 22% is in public ownership, but it does not stack up that way. More work needs to be done on that but I do intend to publish it. It is not just up to me, by the way. We need to publish it in conjunction with the Departments of agriculture and housing. I want that done before Christmas.

That is encouraging. There are many big decisions coming up that the report could inform. It is there to inform future climate action plans, some of which we have been looking at and reviewing recently at the climate committee. It strikes me it is also relevant to the nitrates derogation negotiations. It seems, based on leaks from the report, that there is talk of intensification of dairy farming in the south east of the country, where we already have huge water quality issues. We have previously discussed the issues around Lady's Island Lake this year. It is also relevant to the housing plan that will be published later this month by the Minister's colleague, the housing Minister, in terms of how and where we build, the push for councils to rezone around the country and the potential for urban sprawl where there is ad hoc building on land as farmers sell it up.

It strikes me that the sooner this report is released and worked on the better because there are a lot of big decisions at the moment that will be informed by it.

I appreciate that the Deputy is asking the question slightly in the dark because he has seen phase 1, but he has not seen the phase 2 report. I am genuinely anxious to get this report published so people can see what is in it. The Deputy mentioned the intensification of farming in certain areas. There are options in the report and certain scenarios are laid out in it, so it is not directing us as policymakers to do A, B, C or D. It is a very significant piece of work that has been done and it will absolutely guide us going forward. I will use this opportunity to say in the context of looking at land use that while people focus on agriculture it is important to note that agricultural emissions reduced again last year. There are many people in the agricultural sector, in the farming sector, who are really changing practices very well and are leading by example. This can actually help and I would like to see some of the particular examples scaled up. I am genuinely anxious to get this published. It is not in my gift alone; we have to do it in conjunction with two sister Departments. I want to do that before Christmas. It would inform a very good debate in the Oireachtas at committee but also, I would suggest, in plenary in this Chamber.

In the last question the Minister mentioned the retrofitting and heat pump targets but the target to retrofit 500,000 homes to B2 standard and install 400,000 heat pumps by 2030 seems to be far behind. The Government has delivered just 12% and 3% of those targets. The Government has often said that investment and delivery will rapidly increase year on year, but the budget for 2026 tells a different story. The Minister said it was a record increase but it has the same capital allocation for retrofitting as the Revised Estimate for 2025 so it is actually a decrease on the promised capital investment of €641 million. Are the targets now null and void? Is the Minister going to accept that?

The Government and our Department are fully committed to making homes warmer, reducing energy bills and cutting emissions. We will do this through the retrofitting and heat pump initiatives set out in the climate action plan and delivered via the national retrofit plan, which is built on the four key pillars of demand, supply, financing and governance.

Since 2019 we have made significant progress. To date there has been over €1.5 billion in support to homeowners to enable over 228,000 home energy upgrades, including over 30,000 fully funded upgrades for households at risk of energy poverty. Local authorities have delivered a further 14,300 upgrades, including over 7,250 heat pump installations. These are real measures, real upgrades and real savings for households. In parallel, delivery quality is rising. Over 76,000 B2 level upgrades have been supported to date. For 2025 we have allocated over €550 million for SEAI residential and community energy upgrades, including solar PV. This is the highest ever. Budget 2026 provides €558 million from carbon tax receipts and an €89 million increase is expected to be further supplemented through the European Regional Development Fund to keep delivery moving at pace.

We are on track to stay within the residential sectoral emission ceiling for the first carbon budget period to the end of 2025 based on the most recent SEAI assessment. Targets and allocations for 2026 will be set out in the Revised Estimates later this year. Our focus is very much on sustained investment, strong governance and steady expansion of capacity in the supply chain. The Department is very focused on continuing to fund these upgrades and prioritising those who are most in need and we are building on the pipeline for 2026.

I am not sure the priority has been proven to be those who are most in need. It is not just me questioning the Minister of State’s statement that significant progress has been made. Social Justice Ireland has said the retrofitting scheme constitutes little more than a wealth transfer. The programme for Government made a number of promises to focus on lower income homes to have retrofits each year from 2026 to 2030 but since then there have been zero changes to how the grant scheme is administered and zero effort to tier the grants so that they can be directed at those who need it most because the upfront cost to a home is an astronomical €60,000 to €70,000 which is unacceptable and unaffordable to most people. Most people on lower incomes, especially those who use solid fuel, often in rural, older homes, are locked out of the scheme. It is a bit like the EV scheme where richer people in Dublin and Cork are availing of it more and not those who need it most.

Budget 2026 has provided increased funding. That demonstrates the level of intent in regard to a €89 million increase and we do expect additional European funding through the ERDF. This funding is very much needed now to make homes warmer, healthier and cheaper to heat. We are also matching that funding with capacity. We are enhancing the grants. We know we need to simplify the application process. We need more one-stop shops. We now have around 26. We have increased the deeper, warmer home supports. We have also looked at new area-based projects. The new home energy upgrade loan scheme has been provided at a rate of close to 3%. These are all initiatives that will build the pipeline we want to see in the coming years. Through the NDP review, we have provided a substantial allocation to support this.

I accept there is a need to simplify the process because it seems to me there was a lack of planning in that some news reports said householders were told to roll back or change their retrofitting efforts on the basis that they were in breach of planning permission. Only 355 loans have been approved over the last year. If the average loan is about €48,000 that is only €17 million which is far from the game-changing results we were promised. Again, the high concentration of loans going towards the east coast has led to far less uptake in the rest of the country when that is factored into it.

The Minister of State also mentioned solar. The lowest income homes seem to be locked out of the solar revolution. Will the Minister of State take any steps to try and make the retrofitting more affordable, to tier it and to target specifically people in rural areas, older people who use more solid fuel rather than, as Social Justice Ireland said, a wealth transfer?

Again, we are in the process of simplifying the application process. We understand we need to do more to drive down wait times. We want to continue to deliver deeper, more complex upgrades at an unprecedented scale. The target for next year is over 60,000 upgrades and we are very much looking at accelerating that further. We have looked at cost inflation around much deeper upgrades. They have substantially increased from €2,600 ten years ago to over €29,000 now. There has been a surge in demand and we cannot ignore that but we have action under way in relation to increased budgets, extra SEAI staff, which is really important, and also a stronger contractor management system. I am very much focused on trying to get the target number of applications through to approval stage and allow many homes which deeply require these upgrades to get them in a more efficient manner.

Will the Minister report on the outcome of his recent meetings with the largest energy companies in September and make a statement on the matter?

As Minister, I meet with a range of stakeholders on important topics including energy prices, which is one of the most pressing. I can confirm that I have met with both the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, which is assigned consumer protection functions under the Electricity Regulation Act, and energy suppliers since being appointed as Minister. On 26 September 2025, I met with the four biggest energy suppliers in Ireland, Electric Ireland, Bord Gáis Energy, SSE Airtricity and Energia, at separate meetings. In addition to my interactions, my officials meet with suppliers on a regular basis. I intend to meet the other smaller energy providers like Yuno and others which have not increased their energy prices this year.

Following my engagement with them I have received confirmation that hardship funds for those struggling to meet their energy costs will be made available to households this winter. That was a direct request that I put to them. They acceded to that request and I am grateful for that. I stated in response to a previous question that direct measures by way of assistance, particularly to those who need it most, were brought forward in the budget. The energy companies need to play their part too. Arrears levels are too high. I am questioning some of those arrears, particularly on gas. I think there is an issue with some of the data there that needs to be worked through. It was a good meeting.

The CRU has also published enhanced customer protection measures for this winter. For the upcoming winter period, some of the key customer protection measures that will remain in place include a disconnection moratorium for reasons of non-payment, minimum timelines for debt repayment plans, discounted tariffs for financial hardship meter customers and a promotion by energy suppliers of the vulnerable customer register, which is critically important. I would encourage people who feel they are in that space to make sure they are on the vulnerable customer register. That is in addition to existing sources of support such as fuel allowance, the household benefits package and the additional needs payment scheme operated under the Department of Social Protection.

I will come back with further details in a supplementary.

We are all aware that electricity prices are crushing many families across the country at the moment. They are so high. We have among the highest electricity prices in Europe. Recently we were told by the International Energy Agency that our retail prices are three times higher than our wholesale prices. The savings the energy companies are making on wholesale energy are not being passed through to customers. We are seeing continual rises from the companies of between €120 to €220 on average bills, and that is despite their own costs going down. There is a question as to whether these companies are gouging customers. Indeed, the Government's interim report, the affordability report, made a recommendation that the CRU investigate price gouging by these companies. Did the Minister speak to these companies about price gouging and about them actually reducing their prices, not helping people pay their extortionate prices but reducing the prices for ordinary families across the country?

It is important to acknowledge that the largest energy retailer, Electric Ireland, did not increase its prices. I did discuss those very matters with the four companies in relation to their margins. The IEA report looked at the margin between retail and wholesale. It is not that the retail price is three times higher in Ireland than in other places. It is the margin. There are specific, unique characteristics to Ireland, particularly in relation to us being an island nation, the reliance that we still have on imported fossil fuel, which we need to reduce further, and the fact that our energy retailers hedge and purchase forward. When we see a wholesale price decrease, I can fully understand people asking why the retail price does not come down straight away. The energy companies buy forward and they hedge. They will have purchased energy ten or 12 months ahead in some instances. That is why we do not see that decrease happening as quickly as we would like. I will continue to meet with the energy retailers on a regular basis. I have interrogated their pricing structure and I will be bringing forward further measures in the final energy affordability report, which I will publish in 2026.

In 2020, the average electricity bill was €976. It is currently €1,877. There is no way that is justifiable, even considering the special circumstances that Ireland faces and considering what happened in Ukraine. People are paying twice what they were paying five years ago and, as I said, the price that the companies are paying for wholesale energy is going down. It is now 75% lower than in 2022. Those savings should be passed on to customers and those companies are not doing it. It has been recommended by the Government's own affordability agency that the energy regulator conduct an investigation into price gouging by those energy companies. Will the Minister direct the energy regulator to put in place that investigation into price gouging by those large retailers and the energy companies?

The Deputy understands how the energy markets work. I am just stating it factually in relation to the time lag between wholesale price decreases and retail price decreases. There are unique attributes to Ireland. That said, energy costs are too high and we need to bring those prices down permanently. We are affected by geopolitical issues. Ukraine has had an effect, absolutely. Europe has had to pivot away, and rightly so, from dependence on Russian gas and oil. We are still importing a significant amount of our energy from third countries. That is why the expansion of renewables is so critically important, which we are seeing. There was another successful option just a number of weeks ago for onshore and the delivery of additional electricity, our electricity, our energy that is clean and generated here.

To answer the Deputy's question, work is ongoing on pricing. It is something I am watching very closely. That is why I have met the companies directly myself. It is important to acknowledge that the largest retailer has not increased its prices. We need to get prices down. We will do that by continuing to diversify our electricity market and electricity generation. That is why grid investment is so critical, including things like the North-South interconnector. If that was built, it would bring down energy prices for every household and every business pretty much straight away. Projects like that need to be delivered.

At the outset, I am not against wind energy. I am against the health implications of wind energy. Will the Minister acknowledge that the High Court has now ruled in multiple cases that wind turbine noise can constitute a nuisance, even where developments are compliant with planning conditions, and confirm the specific advice the Department received from the Office of the Attorney General in March 2024 regarding this matter? What are his plans to implement that advice to ensure that Ireland’s regulatory framework adequately protects affected residents?

I acknowledge that the Deputy is not opposed to renewable energy. I note the recent High Court rulings related to private nuisance claims and related awards of damages connected with noise from particular wind farm developments.

We currently have over 5 GW of onshore wind generation and in 2024, wind accounted for 33% our electricity demand. This is related to the previous question on pricing which I have just answered. Ireland has one of the best wind resources in the world. We are already among world leaders for installed onshore wind capacity per capita and we are a European leader for the integration of variable renewable electricity on the national grid. Meeting our national targets for wind energy will require further integration of renewable technologies in proximity to communities. This has to be done in an appropriate manner in full consultation with those communities.

Important related work is progressing, in collaboration with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, to review the existing wind energy development guidelines. The review is addressing a number of key aspects including noise, setback distance, shadow flicker, community obligation, community dividend and grid connections. In particular, my Department has been engaged on advancing guidance on the noise aspect of the draft guidelines to ensure they are robust and fit for purpose, having regard to our target to generate 80% of our electricity from renewable sources, and we need to get there, as well as the need to ensure adequate protection of communities and residential developments in proximity.

My Department, in the context of its environmental noise remit, appointed consultants in May 2023 to inform any amendments to the noise aspect of the guidelines. That work is now substantially complete. A strategic environmental assessment is being carried out on the draft guidelines as part of the review process. In this regard, I am advised the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage intends to undertake a public consultation on updated draft guidelines as part of the screening process, whereby all interested parties and, importantly, communities will have an opportunity to submit observations.

How many High Court judgments will it take before the Government accepts that wind noise is causing health implications? People and communities in Limerick are taking up their own alliances because of the health implications where wind turbines are put up. Wind turbine planning applications are being lodged at a massive rate. The wind turbines that have gone up to date never involved health organisations. The HSE was not involved in the planning applications of the ones that exist. They are ignoring the health implications. Again, I am not against wind energy. I am against locations that are causing health implications for people living in those areas. People are entitled to their own health in their own residence. All they are asking for is to have their health protected. We are not against wind energy but we are against locations where they are causing health implications for people.

Approximately 33% of our electricity comes through onshore wind energy. There are significant wind farm developments across the country, many of which do not cause any difficulty for any communities.

The same goes with solar. I have visited many of them as well. People need clean, green renewable energy that is affordable and affordability will be driven through renewables. That said, however, the noise element of the guidelines is critically important. I have updated the Deputy on where that is at. The adoption of revised guidelines will be a matter for planning. This is not me passing the buck; it is just it sits under the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. We are working with that Department directly on that. That piece of work is nearly concluded. I would like to see it concluded because people need that type of certainty to see what is there. Technologies are changing for the better as well. That is why we need those guidelines updated too. There are real issues for some people in some communities but there have not been issues in many other communities and we need to make sure we can continue to drive on renewable sources of energy here. I will keep the Deputy informed of progress. People will get an opportunity to input into these guidelines when they go out on public display and I am certain the Deputy and many others, both in government and in opposition, will want to feed into them too.

I thank the Minister. Again, we are talking about health. The other side of things is that given the number of wind turbines that have been pushed through planning at the moment, it is not about wind energy. Cian Murtagh is a lecturer in Sligo and he has looked at Ireland’s energy mix. For the month of October, we paid €115 million in curtailment costs and over €300 million in the last three months, taking money from every household to give to people who are profiting from wind energy. This is a business case in terms of what people are doing. They are flooding the market with these now. How many of the wind energy turbines in this country are owned by Ireland? I believe 63% are owned by companies based in China. Our wind energy is a land-take and the energy will not be ours by the time it finishes. It will be gone to different countries.

Now I am beginning to wonder whether the Deputy is for wind energy or not, following his last comments. The largest renewable provider of energy in the country is Bord na Móna. That is a company that has pivoted and is an example of how a company can transition from fossil fuels and be a leader in the delivery of renewables on land we own as a State. We see that when we drive through the country. Curtailment costs are an issue and reducing dispatch down is an issue. Why is that? It is because the grid needs upgrading and we need more storage. We have about 1 GW of storage but we need more. Storage is critically important as well in order that we can dispatch energy when we need it. This is an issue, by the way, right across Europe and the developed world. It is not unique to Ireland. However, technologies are improving and we need to expand storage as well in order that we can release that energy, reduce curtailment costs and reduce dispatch down. That is going to happen. That is why PR6, which is the investment plan, will be published before the end of the year by CRU and will detail what investment we need. About €16 billion to €18 billion of investment in our grid between now and 2030-----

Offshore.

-----and that is critical. No, this is onshore.

But we need offshore.

We do of course but we need them to come through planning. We have five projects still in planning with An Coimisiún Pleanála and we are committed to offshore as well.

The climate action plan sets out ambitious offshore targets of 5 GW by 2030 and up to 20 GW by 2040. However, none of the offshore projects are yet operational as the Minister has mentioned and the first grid connections are not expected until 2028. Will the Minister outline how the Government intends to accelerate delivery, specifically the current offshore pipeline aligned with the climate action plan 2025 targets? What progress has been made on grid integration and planning reform to ensure those targets are actually met?

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Ó Cearúil as an gceist thábhachtach. I thank him for this important question. Our climate action plan specifies a target of 5 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030. That is not going to happen but we need to ensure those projects are in construction and that is down to planning. This target will be met in the early 2030s through a combination of projects from phase 1 and from within the south coast DMAP. The five phase 1 projects with a combined capacity of 3.8 GW are in development off our east coast. Applications for planning consent for all five projects are with An Coimisiún Pleanála and are subject to planning consent. I anticipate that these projects will be in construction by 2030. There were significant further requests from An Coimisiún Pleanála on the five phase 1 projects, mainly related to very significant additional bird surveys. That is the reality, unfortunately, of where we are there but these will be delivered.

Separately, an offshore wind auction process for 900 MW under the Tonn Nua site off our south coast is under way right now. This site is within the south coast DMAP, which was approved by the Oireachtas and the Tonn Nua project is expected to be operational by 2034.

My Department is working towards further auctions to achieve our 2030 target. We had a successful RESS 5 onshore auction as well where we secured over 1 GW of onshore renewables. However, offshore is absolutely critical. We need to work these projects through planning and get them out of planning. I have met with the phase 1 developers. I meet them regularly. We saw auctions in Holland recently where there were no bidders at all. Ireland is still seen as a place that is very attractive for offshore wind following on from what the Deputy said. Therefore, there are measures we have put in such as the Maritime Area Planning Act. We need faster consenting through MARA and are working through revised processes in MARA, which are starting to bear fruit. The Planning and Development Act, which the last Oireachtas passed and which the Minister, Deputy Browne, is commencing through the course of this year, will make a big difference as well by setting the statutory timelines. Indeed, the transposition of the RED II and RED III directive, which we are engaged in now will also be critically important.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. We all share the same ambition but I fear there is now a growing gap sometimes between the aspiration and delivery. It is not just in relation to energy. We have been discussing this ad nauseam in terms of different areas of society. Seven phase 1 projects have maritime area consents, as the Minister mentioned, totalling around 4.2 GW, yet none are near construction. The delays in both grid readiness and planning are stalling progress. I appreciate the Minister's involvement in trying to get things moving, particularly from a planning perspective and I appreciate how difficult it is. However, EirGrid's offshore grid connection policy is not due until 2026. It will be early next year, so not too far away. Developers still do not have clarity on connection costs or timelines. The maritime area planning regime, while welcome, has no statutory decision timelines. Anything around here needs timelines. An Coimisiún Pleanála lacks the resources and the expertise to process these applications quickly.

There are a couple of things there. We have an independent planning process. Sometimes it is a frustration for us, in that we want to see things delivered quicker but that is the reality. We have had people who will object to offshore wind as well. We respect the right of third parties. However, we have done things well too. If you look at onshore, which I have mentioned previously, we are a European leader in the integration of renewables into our grid. We are a European leader - and one of the world leaders; number two in the world - in relation to onshore winds. We have gone from about 7% of electricity generation through renewables just 20 years ago to about 41% or 42% last year. This shows what is possible. To be fair, the granting of onshore applications by An Coimisiún Pleanála in quarter 1 and quarter 2 of this year reached record levels. That is why we have had a very successful RESS 5 auction. However, offshore is really where we are going to see that absolute pivot. If we look at just those five projects, there is nearly 4GW. We have between 6 GW and 7 GW of onshore renewables. We will see in these projects alone what that will deliver. I will come back in on supplementary regarding MARA.

I thank the Minister. We need to look at introducing statutory timelines for consenting decisions and publish a delivery roadmap linking planning, grid and construction milestones. Without the joined up approach, we risk not only missing our 2030 targets but also the legally binding carbon budgets too, which is important to mention. It is not just about missing or meeting our climate targets. Offshore wind is Ireland's single biggest opportunity to secure our own clean energy, cut bills for families, as the Minister mentioned earlier, and build a new industry with long-term jobs along our coast. We have seen the success of onshore and of solar throughout the country and the expertise we have garnered in those two key areas. However, to realise the ambition, we need urgency and we need accountability from the various bodies in how projects can move from plans into generating power.

Regarding MARA, which I established in my previous Ministry, it has statutory timeframes for decision-making. The problem is it is not meeting them. That is a problem. It is working towards that. That means the connection policy from EirGrid will also be published on time. I attend the offshore wind energy task force and, for the first time, I brought this sector into the room. Therefore, it is not just Government agencies. We have brought in the development sector and it is at all of the meetings. Instead of people writing back and forth to each other, or attending separate meetings, everything is dealt with in the room. That urgency is there. Certainly, the request for further information from the board, without straying into the planning process, was a frustration but it is an independent process that we need to, and do, respect.

As these come out of planning, our big focus has to be to get them into construction. While we are doing that, we are in the middle of our second auction, which I believe there has been good interest in. I intend to bring the results of that auction, once I receive them, to Cabinet in early December. I think that will show where Ireland is able to be successful with auctions where, unfortunately, other European partners are not at the moment.

The amount that can be raised through network charges to fund grid upgrades and the renewable heat obligation will come up soon. The Minister mentioned he has spoken to energy suppliers, but has he spoken to them as well as the regulator on the pressures these will put on household energy bills? While we accept that investment in the grid and transition to renewable heat are essential, what safeguards will be put in place to shield householders from increases?

The programme for Government acknowledges the increased energy cost pressures on households and businesses. I know, as I said earlier, that that is a real issue for people. The programme for Government commits to bringing forward additional measures to address those costs, and we have discussed that. I established a cross-government energy affordability task force. We identified particular measures, which we have dealt with in this budget. A further piece of work we are doing, which I will bring forward, is the final report in 2026. That will look at network charges, structures and so on. There will be a European dimension to this too, and it requires movement from Europe, particularly with regard to the spark gap. That needs to be addressed.

We are committed to reaching our legally binding targets on climate neutrality. We are also committed to bringing about energy sovereignty in this country. As Deputy Ó Cearúil mentioned in the previous question, we have a real opportunity to do that and to secure for ourselves clean energy that is generated and owned by us and that will help us decarbonise our society and reduce our energy bills.

Given the potential impact the RHO could have on end customers, energy affordability and the impact on household energy bills were key considerations in developing the scheme. My Department has carried out extensive analysis and stakeholder engagement, including with energy suppliers, to ensure that final decisions taken in relation to the scheme are evidence based and supportive of its successful introduction. A number of scheme parameters have been designed to allow flexibility to obligated parties in meeting their obligations, which will in turn reduce the overall burden on the end consumer.

Responsibility for the regulation of the electricity market and the implementation of the price review 6 process and its outcomes is a matter for the regulator, the CRU. The CRU is independent and, in relation to the outcome of the price review strategy and associated issues, the Deputy can and may wish to engage directly with it. He should note, however, the significant equity investment the Government is making in the system operators, which we discussed just last night. That in itself is significant-----

Thank you, Minister.

Okay. I will come back in on some of that.

Most people will know, and the people in the Gallery will know, that the need for the grid upgrades is driven in part by the growing energy demands of data centres, whose usage has increased by 400% since 2015. Therefore, all the extra energy we are creating in renewables is being gobbled up by the data centres. The Government's own officials last November, in a memo issued by the Department of public expenditure, pointed out that the upward pressure on energy bills is due mainly to data centre expansion. That followed a warning from the Secretary General of the Minister's own Department in May that data centre growth could threaten our ability to solve the housing crisis. We have repeatedly highlighted the unfairness in the funding model for our grid, but the draft or interim decision for PR6 in July seems to ingrain this. Under the CRU's draft decision, households and SMEs will see their electricity network charges increase but the data centre users will see reductions of up to 18%.

As I have said in the House before, I reject both the assertions from the Department of public expenditure and the comments made earlier this year on housing and data centres. They are not correct. Government policy is clear on this. We have a growing population and growing housing stock, thankfully. Price review 6, when published before the end of this year, will show how we will meet that future energy demand. We need to invest in our grid, and there will be a cost associated with that. I mentioned what we were doing last night in relation to providing the equity investment for ESB and a further equity investment for EirGrid. That reduces the requirement for borrowing somewhat and allows them to leverage off that equity to borrow. Into the future, I will look at maybe longer term borrowing and repayment to reduce the burden on the regulatory framework. That is something we have to balance, but we do need this grid investment. I put it to the Deputy again that projects like the North-South interconnector are absolutely required. This is consented to both sides of the Border and it is not developed. It needs to happen. The connector is one project that will bring down energy bills for businesses and households straight away.

I think we all agree that the equity investment we were discussing last night is necessary. Unfortunately, however, there does not seem to be anything there to safeguard against repeating past mistakes to ensure that the investment is directed towards the social good and to prioritising energy affordability. One company, Energia, justified its recent price hikes based on the network charge increases. On its website it says that it has worked to minimise the impact on customers but that the price changes are unavoidable. At a recent appearance before the committee, however, concerns were raised that network charge increases could not be used to explain its recent price hikes because the network charges increased by €29 but its charges increased by €200. This suggests that the energy suppliers may be using network costs to facilitate extra profit, which is not surprising. To date, the committee has received no update from the regulator about its justification. At a minimum, we need transparency as to how the costs are translated into bills and mechanisms to safeguard against profiteering.

As regards cost transparency, absolutely, and we need an analysis, and we are doing an analysis, of the costs that are there. I have met the four largest energy providers and have interrogated them on this very matter. We have to watch this very closely. Energy bills are too high in Ireland. They are too high right across Europe. In Cyprus, net energy costs are about 20% of average net pay, so we are not on our own on this. We are about the eighth most expensive in Europe. As I mentioned to Deputy Whitmore earlier, there are unique reasons for that because of our being an island nation, but we need to take measures that will drive down costs permanently. We will always be at risk of geopolitical issues too, though. That is why we need to continue and accelerate the delivery of clean energy and renewables - energy that we ourselves own and can generate to decarbonise our society, to reduce energy bills and to secure energy for the future of this country. That is what drives me. Affordability is key and central to that. Every discussion I have at the European Council and with energy providers is about affordability. We have to work hard on that to drive down costs and provide affordability but also support those who need it most. That is why the measures in the budget were so critical.

Everywhere I go these days I see houses getting energy upgrades. They will ensure that our homes will be easier and cheaper to heat and keep warm, which is very welcome. Might the Minister have the number of homes that have completed energy upgrades this year and how that compares with previous years?

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta for his question. My Department funds a number of grant schemes administered by the SEAI for solar PV and heat pump installation as part of the national retrofit plan. To the end of September 2025, over 41,500 home energy upgrades had been completed with SEAI grant support. That compares with 38,000 in the same period in 2024, 34,000 in 2023, 16,062 in 2022, 9,938 in 2021 and 12,573 in 2020. That represents 10% growth on last year and 22% on 2023, showing strong momentum.

I acknowledge that the approval and completion timelines remain a challenge. We are particularly focused on deep retrofits and the warmer homes scheme. Average wait times, as acknowledged earlier in the House, remain high because the works are complex and demand is strong. We will continue to invest in skilled workers, more contractors and streamlined processes. We are also taking action including simplification of the application process. We are expanding the one-stop shop, which now comprises over 26 contractors, the home energy improvement loan, with rates of 2.99%, and building capacity, which must grow to meet current demand.

Budget 2026 also provided €558 million, an 89% increase, that will be supplemented with ERDF funding. On the specific data in regard to ramping up delivery, we hope by 2030 that targets of over 500,000 B2 retrofits and over 400,000 heat pumps will be delivered.

One of the issues I have heard from people who have looked to upgrade their traditional built houses, many of which are in our towns and villages as the Minister of State is well aware, is the potential need to engage conservation professionals, given the construction methods. This puts a far greater cost burden on the owner. I am led to believe there is a significant shortage in such professionals, both technical and practical. This makes for huge delay in delivering the energy upgrades and therefore they are far less attractive. For example, the cost of conservation technical expertise to ensure the internal and external walls of these properties are treated properly could erode a grant available of up to 60%. Does the Minister of State have a breakdown of the number of traditional properties that have taken on these energy upgrades? Will the Minister of State consider putting some extra funding in place for people who own these properties to engage conservation professionals?

I thank the Deputy for his question and for outlining the challenges faced by some homeowners. We are looking at continuing policy development in regard to the national retrofit plan. In recent years, significant changes have been introduced as part of the retrofitting scheme. One part of that was a new pilot to support the retrofitting of traditional built homes. I will work with the Deputy on the specific instance he has raised. We have also introduced two pilots aimed at informing approaches to increase the number of heat pumps installed. We know as demand increases a lot of the traditional built homes that may have conservation challenges will become a lot more expensive to retrofit. We are working at streamlining the processes. If there are examples that the Deputy wants to share with us, we certainly will work with SEAI and try to build them into a broader programme that meets the needs of everyone throughout the country.

There is an upgrade scheme through the SEAI at the minute called the traditional home pilot scheme. There is a low uptake, and this is directly related to the costs associated with conservation technical expertise and the lack of conservation professionals. Will the Minister of State provide details as to the number of expressions of interest there have been through the one-stop shops and the number of those who have followed through with the applications? If we are serious about upgrading many of the older properties in the country - and let us be honest there are lots of them - many of them use turf and coal for heating and have thermal inefficiencies, we will have to acknowledge the reality around the added costs associated with treating them properly.

Over 41,500 upgrades have been completed so far this year. We have been building momentum. I do not have the numbers on hand for traditional built housing, but I certainly can get that back to the Deputy. As I said earlier, we need more skills and contractors and better supply chain resilience. That is why we are very much focused on more SEAI staff for the warmer homes scheme, and indeed, more one-stop shop operators. It is at 26 already. To the Deputy's point, it needs to be ensured that all homes are included. To get that specific skill set and expertise is something we can go to back to SEAI on and revert to the Deputy on. We will get the figures to the Deputy around warmer home retrofits for traditional homes.

I am asking this question on behalf of Deputy Liam Quaide. Has the Minister of State's attention has been drawn to the large-scale fish kill mortalities that occurred on the River Blackwater in County Cork in August 2025; the actions he will take to prevent similar future occurrences; and if he will make a statement on the matter?

I thank the Deputy for the question. The Government, my Department and the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, are fully committed to protecting our rivers, safeguarding our fish stocks and supporting local communities and anglers. I fully recognise and acknowledge the seriousness of the fish kill on the River Blackwater near Mallow. This event has had a major impact on local community anglers and the wider catchment. From the outset, the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, was in regular contact with Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Cork County Council, local councillors and Oireachtas Members in the area. He has visited this site twice and established an interagency group to co-ordinate, investigate and respond. The investigation concluded in September by IFI on behalf of the interagency group set up to co-ordinate the investigation. The report is published on the IFI's website. The report provides a clear account of the State's response to and the investigation into the incident. The incident conclusively rules out systemic disease, water quality issues and licensed discharge. Evidence pointed to a short-lived waterborne irritant that dissipated before it could be traced as a source.

While it is regrettable that no specific cause was found, I assure the House that this was not due to a lack of effort or action but because the event was transient. The Minister of State and the Department are satisfied that every avenue was investigated with over 40 site inspections, 900 chemical screens, pathology tests and extensive monitoring, sampling and surveys carried out by the interagency group. The priority is now to apply lessons learned from this event, strengthen enforcement and build resilience to ensure that we are better prepared to prevent and respond to any such further incidents. On that note, IFI has commenced the process of formalising a joint protocol with other relevant State agencies to address significant future pollutant events that result in fish kill. This will ensure that a combined emergency response will be deployed as quickly as possible to mitigate the effects of significant pollution discharge that impacts fish and their habitats.

I thank the Minister of State very much. I visited the site with Deputy Quaide and spoke to many of the anglers there. It was a devastating fish kill. It was probably way more than 40,000 fish, such as trout, that were killed. The problem is that once those fish are gone, they are gone. Their reproduction capacity is gone. It will take more than ten years to get the river back to a standard and that will not naturally happen either. There has to be serious management and monitoring of the river because there are invasive species in it and they may now become the dominant species there. It is important issue that needs to be taken care. I welcome the interagency group. It is important that protocol is put in place immediately or as soon as possible. What was clear from investigating this was that all the different agencies were working in their own silos. There was little overlap between them. Unfortunately, the delays that happened allowed for that contaminant to wash through the system before any investigations could happen.

I thank the Deputy for her focus and attention, along with her colleague's, on this matter. It is the responsibility of Inland Fisheries Ireland to continue to safeguard the fish stock and the habitat within the River Blackwater near Mallow. The Minister of State is extensively engaging on the management plan moving into the future regarding this significant incident. As the Deputy said, three key measures have been established: the joint emergency protocol, the independent review and we and the Minister of State are examining legislative amendments to strengthen IFI's enforcement powers and to ensure that we continue to work with other agencies regarding future and faster responses in the context of the significant incidents that occurred in Cork. The Deputy can be assured that my Department and all of its officials working with IFI are very much focused on what the learnings will be and how we can implement them into any future responses.

What also became apparent during those discussions following that fish kill is that there are major gaps in the EPA enforcement programme.

The agency has a national priority sites register, which has the poorest performing sites on it. For example, it monitors 900 sites and four are currently on that list, so they really are the poorest performing sites and North Cork Creameries is one of them. North Cork Creameries received its licence in 2019. It has been on the national priority list for the EPA in quarter 3 in 2021, quarters 2,3 and 4 in 2022, all of 2023, all of 2024 and two quarters in 2025. Despite all those compliance issues, the EPA has not suspended the creamery's licence yet. It is incredible that an entity can be in non-compliance for the majority of its licence period with no enforcement actions undertaken by the EPA other than an €11,000 fine. For a company that generates a profit in excess of €200 million, €11,000 is a drop in the ocean. It will make no difference. Can the Minister of State please look into the EPA's enforcement processes and ensure that when entities are in non-compliance they are held accountable?

We need to be very careful identifying ----

These are all facts. They are on the register.

-----specific entities here in the House without the right to reply.

They have already been on the climate committee-----

Allow the Minister of State respond, Deputy.

In fairness, we need to be very careful of the language we use regarding the extensive investigation that was undertaken around the ongoing monitoring of the River Blackwater and other catchments. It is incumbent on us to ensure this is done through an evidence-based, fact-finding mission. We are reassured that no water quality issues have been detected. We have also ensured that the river remains safe for angling and recreation. We have also monitored the drinking water for the Mallow treatment plant. That has been confirmed as safe and, indeed, we are taking significant measures in how we can make our system stronger, faster and more resilient to protect fish stock and the habitat.

This is not the strategic, public-led, public owned infrastructure; this is the commercial one.

Tuigim an cheist. I want to put this in context. We go back to the Energy Security in Ireland to 2030 report that we published, and we published the Cambridge Economic Policy Associates report as well. We offered briefings on that too. A very clear risk was identified in that we have no gas reserve in this country. That is why we are proceeding with the floating storage and regasification unit, FSRU, which will be State-owned, State-led and State-operated. I expect we will receive a decision shortly from Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, on preferred locations. State-owned and State-led is absolutely needed and required. My focus is on expanding renewables, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and moving away from them. We operate an open and transparent legal regulatory and planning consenting framework. Any application for fossil fuel infrastructure in Ireland will be subject to appropriate approvals by the relevant bodies. They also have to have regard to the provisions of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021. Government policy on reducing fossil fuel use is set out in our programme for Government. We are absolutely committed to it. We remain of the view that long-term energy security is best achieved through substantial growth in indigenous clean, renewable energy; improvements in energy efficiency, which we have discussed; electrification of heat and transport; and increased electrical interconnection with our neighbours. The Celtic interconnector is under construction. We will have the MaresConnect interconnector, and we are engaging with European partners on another interconnector to continental Europe. Any application made for any fossil fuel generation is a matter for the planning authority, but it must have regard to our climate Act and our programme for Government.

As the Minister will be aware, An Coimisiún Pleanála asked for guidance specifically on commercial LNG facilities and storage from him. His response to that letter and that request for guidance did not mention commercial at all. He did not actually provide a clear answer to the board, and he essentially gave the same response as he has just given to me, but that is not the same as giving a clear policy direction. The previous Government gave a clear policy direction on fracked gas. That is no longer in place. What I am looking for, and I hope the Government will do in recognition of the fact that it wants us to move away from fossil fuels, is a clear policy direction from the Minister to say that private commercial LNG facilities is not a policy the Government wants implemented in Ireland. That was the kind of direction An Coimisiún Pleanála was looking for. It will be making its decision on this in early 2026. Will the Minister please provide that guidance?

As the Deputy knows, I received a letter from An Coimisiún Pleanála that was addressed to the wrong office. It was received months after it was sent. I thought it was a strange letter to receive from An Coimisiún Pleanála, but I did respond to it. I provided the Government's position on it.

The Deputy mentioned the fracked gas policy that was set aside. It was set aside because my predecessor received legal advice that clearly stated it was not legally sound and that policy should not differentiate between the type of LNG. It is a matter for An Coimisiún Pleanála to make a decision on a specific planning application. I do not mean to be evasive, but I am acutely aware that there is an application and proceedings relating to a specific application and I do not want to say anything that would in any way, shape or form be seen as reaching into the planning process. However, I did respond to the letter I received from An Coimisiún Pleanála. I responded to it in the timeframe that was asked. An Coimisiún Pleanála will consider the application as it is received. It is up to the commission to decide upon it.

I understand the Minister cannot reach into specific planning applications, but what he can do, and the Government has a responsibility to do, is provide clear policy positions on energy growth, development and security in this country. The Minister has already done it in relation to publicly owned LNG. I am asking - and this would be in line with the climate Act - that the Minister puts forward a clear policy position to say the only LNG facility the Government will consider appropriate is a publicly owned one and that there should not be any consideration or development of privately owned LNG facilities in Ireland. The reality is, if a privately owned LNG facility is established, there is no way that any Government could justify spending nearly €1 billion on a publicly owned one. My fear is that if the privately owned facility gets the go ahead, the Government will quietly kick to touch the publicly owned one and instead rely on that privately owned one. It is really important the Minister is clear on this.

I understand the point being made. We are committed to the publicly owned FSRU. We have actually advanced it. We meet regularly on this with GNI involved with my own officials and myself to expedite the delivery of it. Hopefully, the Deputy will see that in the coming weeks. I expect there will be a decision regarding options for its location, and indeed, its location. That is what the Government is committed to from an energy security perspective. That is absolutely consistent with the climate action plan. I want continued expansion of renewables and the acceleration of clean energy across all the different methods that we can, be they solar, wind, anaerobic digestion, AD, biomethane and all of that, to feed into our energy system. That is where we are moving. We are doing well but we need to accelerate that further. Any gas reserve will be State-owned and State-managed, and it is not for a private entity to deliver that for the State. That is not our position. It will be State-owned, State-led and State-managed.

I thank the Deputy for his question. Our Department is very committed to helping households cut energy, reduce emissions and generate their own clean power. Grants of up to €1,800 are available through the SEAI for solar photovoltaic, PV, installations in homes built and occupied before 2021. Since 2022, over 90,000 homes have received grants totalling over €196.7 million, delivering 450 MW of installed capacity and saving over 93 kt of CO2.

This high demand shows the scheme is working and the solar industry has scaled up to meet market needs. Homes built since 2021 must comply with Part 11 of the building regulations which set high energy performance standards. Builders can meet these requirements by installing heat pumps and-or solar PV during construction, which is typically cheaper than retrofitting. New builds, therefore, already enjoy significantly higher energy efficiency compared to older homes.

In addition, since May 2023 the VAT rate for solar PV installation in private dwellings was reduced to zero. This applies to new builds as well as existing homes. There are no plans to change the eligibility criteria at this stage but the scheme will be kept under review. Meanwhile, households can benefit from the clean export guarantee which pays for the excess electricity exported to the grid. The rate is currently between 15 cent and 25 cent per kilowatt, depending on suppliers. The Government is also investing record funding of over €550 million in budget 2026 to support energy upgrades, including solar PV and the national retrofit plan. As we are making it easier and cheaper for households to install solar PV through grants, zero VAT and export payments, we will also ensure newer buildings meet high energy standards from day one.

I refer to a person who has worked abroad to save money in order to come back and build a house in Ireland. Due to the contribution they are making to the cost of building, they are unable to receive any grants and are also excluded from solar energy grants.

People with a set income are only entitled to borrow a certain amount of money. They may also receive support from parents. Where parents provide support, that brings people building a house under the qualifying criteria. Therefore, they do not receive any grants. Parents are providing funding to help a son or daughter build a house but that brings them under the grant qualifications and they are then not entitled to any grants for solar panels. Could that issue be reviewed? I refer in particular to people who are not getting any grants of any description under the new build programme.

I thank the Deputy and understand the merits of the question on affordability and the challenges people may encounter when building homes. However, the grant eligibility for solar PV is very much focused on older homes where the need is greatest. Many homes built since 2021 must comply, as I said in my earlier contribution, with Part L of the building regulations and require high energy performance. Many builders have included heat pumps or solar PV during construction. Indeed, it reduces the overall installation cost because if it is not included in a new build, the costs will be greater compared to retrofitting. We are very much focused on older buildings and, therefore, newer buildings already have a higher energy efficiency than others.

As I said, I am speaking about people who are restricted in the amount they can borrow. Therefore, they are receiving assistance from parents which brings them under the qualifying criteria. Many of the new houses that are being built have air to water systems which are very expensive. People are installing such systems but are getting no support from the State because they receive support from parents. It is an issue that needs to be examined, in particular for those who do not qualify for a first-time purchase or owner's grant. When they get support from immediate family, they are penalised. Should there be a scheme whereby people can qualify for grants for heating systems when they have not qualified for a first-time owners grant? This would provide some incentive to put in place a system that is efficient and cost-effective.

I again thank the Deputy for his response. We have already made changes to the uptake on solar PV installations. In May 2023, in order to bridge the affordability challenges we reduced the VAT rate to zero, which applies to new builds as well as existing homes. That was an important step forward. In doing so, we drove down the cost. As I said, retrofitting new homes on the basis that they will be eligible is not best practice for any builders, contractors or installers. The cost will be significantly greater. We will consider grant eligibility and that will be kept under review. At present, it is not intended to change the scheme. We have prioritised homes with the greatest need and over 90,000 homes have received grants extending to over €196 million.

I am standing in for Deputy Carthy. I ask the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment his proposals to increase the amount of polyethylene terephthalate, PET, plastic recycled in Ireland. The EU is discussing collating data. We have to export a huge proportion of it. Since the deposit return scheme was introduced, the recycling rate has risen from 49% to 91%, 76% of which is from the deposit return scheme and 15% of which is from mixed recycling. Some €4.6 million was spent on public awareness last year and €50.7 million on administrative costs. While the deposit return scheme has achieved progress, there are serious questions about transparency, compensation and unreturned deposits.

My Department is committed to increasing recycling rates, reducing plastic waste and supporting investment in domestic recycling capacity. In 2023, Ireland recycled 30% of plastic packaging, exceeding the EU target of 22.5%. However, stricter targets of 50% by 2025 and 55% by 2030 will be challenging. These figures cover all plastics, including PET. As EU exporting reporting does not isolate individual polymers, currently most PET collected is recycled abroad due to economic viability, but measures are underway to change that.

The deposit return scheme introduced in 2024 was a game changer, creating a high quality separate PET stream for recycling. Over 2 billion bottles and cans have been returned and there is a 76% return rate, close to the EU target of 77% by 2025. Under the single use plastic directive, PET plastic beverage bottles must include 25% recycled content from 2025, rising to 30% by 2030. This creates strong market demand for recycled PET and makes investment in Ireland's recycling infrastructure more attractive. Schemes like the deposit return scheme and Repak play a key role in meeting targets and supporting investment. Repak currently provides €100 per 10 tonnes of plastics recycled in Ireland and is working with industry to expand capacity. The forthcoming whole-of-government circular economy strategy will set ambitious targets to reduce resource use, increase reuse and drive innovation. My Department is working closely to create conditions for higher PET recycling rates through regulation, market incentives and investment in domestic capacity.

What measures are being taken to ensure a greater proportion of the plastic is recycled? When will they be put in place? Schemes like the deposit return scheme can only be successful with public support. Of course it is, in effect, based on taxpayers' money via the rebate. With the most households already stretched, every additional cent has to be justified.

We need transparency. I know that Re-Turn produced its annual report in August. It failed to disclose the CEO salary, but what we did learn raises questions about how the collected revenue is being used. Five members of the management team were paid €1.1 million in 2024. When it was questioned recently by the Business Post, Re-Turn declined to comment on how much compensation was connected to the package of the CEO. It is, therefore, the second year in a row that it did not disclose key management personnel compensation. The compensation increased by 50% when the board met less often in 2024 compared to 2023. Three quarters of the board is made up of representatives of the drinks industry. They are obliged to conduct a scheme. Will the Government disclose this information to increase accountability, transparency and support from the public?

Re-Turn has done a tremendous job over the last 18 months since the deposit return scheme, DRS, was introduced. Re-Turn, and the composition of its company as part of the extended producer responsibility, EPR, in the delivery of the DRS, is not obliged under the company law Act to publish its salaries. In good faith, however, it does provide its annual report, as per our Department requirements, and we are very much working closely with it to try to ramp up the DRS. To date, it has been very successful. Over €2 billion euro in bottles and cans has been returned. The reality we face here in Ireland is that up to now, we have lacked a full bottle-to-bottle recycling facility and while some plants can produce polyethylene terephthalate, PET, flakes, specialist equipment for food grade recycling has not yet been available. Due to the success of the DRS, we now have a consistent supply of high-quality PET. This makes investment viable, and that is something we are working on into the future.

I thank the Minister of State for that part of the reply, but the question about what happens to the Re-Turn money and the money made from the scheme requires a bit more clarity. The unredeemed deposits are worth over €100 million. Income generated from producer fees and recycled material is €50 million and although the report mentions unreturned deposits of €66 million, it was actually €103.2 million, so Re-Turn deducted €36 million as an estimate of how much deposits would be returned after the year end. These are substantial sums we are talking about, and the public is entitled to know how it will be used because the taxpayer, in effect, is paying the bill. Does the Minister of State know how long Re-Turn will hold the unredeemed deposits? What are its obligations? How will the other income generated be used or returned for the public good? It is scandalous that nearly 90% of the plastic collected is shipped out of Ireland - 7,000 tonnes of plastic - and Re-Turn claims that this is because we do not have the facilities. Has the Minister of State discussed how the unreturned deposits can be given to the public good, and what measures will be used to increase our recycling capacity?

Again, we are working on how we can build additional capacity into our recycling systems to avoid the additional exportation of PET. I will say that Re-Turn has been good to work with. It is very efficient. It is a retail-led scheme. We have seen the success of it. It has been widely recognised. We are exploring avenues in regard to how we make use of the unredeemed deposits. The establishment of a recycling bottle-to-bottle plant will be an important part of how we deal with the additional consistent supply of high-quality PET, and it makes the investment viable. No decision has been made in that regard yet. We are working through that with Re-Turn, and we will make that decision known in due course.

A number of Deputies whose questions we passed over were at committee meetings but they have just joined us. I will come back to Deputy Ó Murchú's question. If the Deputy could be brief, we will try to get other Deputies in as well.

Go raibh maith agat. I ask the Minister if there is scope in the recently announced new technical and financial advisory support to help to develop a district heating system utilising the European Investment Bank, EIB. The Minister will not be shocked that I am wondering whether we can find a solution in relation to Carlinn Hall. I have spoken to him before about how stakeholders are trying to put together a solution. There are an awful lot of steps to go, but it is about ensuring we look after people in Carlinn Hall.

I thank the Deputy. Government policy is supportive of the expansion of district heating to contribute to the diversification of fuel supply to decarbonise the heat sector. We have massive opportunities there. We have not done well in Ireland. We have one district heating scheme in place in Tallaght, but we have a number of others that we can deliver in the near term. To this end, the district heating steering group report was approved by the Government the year before last. The report contains a suite of recommendations, but we really need to move on this.

The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, has engaged with the EIB on foot of a recommendation in the steering group report to explore financing options for the establishment of a viable district heating sector in Ireland, including supports available from the EIB. I met with officials from the EIB, and we signed an agreement the week before last. My Department is now engaged, through the SEAI, in undertaking a comprehensive advisory project, which will draw on best practice across Europe to help to inform the long-term strategy for developing district heating systems in Ireland. I am speaking at the district heating Ireland conference next week, and I expect to have expressions of interest in other schemes on that.

In tandem, we are looking at the heat (networks and miscellaneous provisions) Bill, which will introduce a regulatory framework on district heating. The general scheme of the Bill has been approved by the Government. It has been drafted with the intention of appointing the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities, CRU, as the regulator for all heat networks, including district and communal heating, which Carlinn Hall falls under. The general scheme sets out proposed functions for the regulator, so there is work ongoing.

The Deputy has raised Carlinn Hall on a number of occasions in this Chamber. It is a private scheme. It is not a district heating scheme. The SEAI has provided - I have asked them to provide - advisory assistance to residents. I believe that is under way. There are some solutions there. We are a long way from the EIB being able to assist Carlinn Hall residents, but if we can continue to provide advisory support to residents, I will continue to ensure that happens. Some bespoke solutions have been put forward to residents in that development and it is something they will need to advance, but if we can provide support in an advisory way, we will.

I asked about facilitation.

The cost of energy, oil, gas and home heating oil is a huge burden on so many people. I am conscious that the Minister has been advancing a plan on energy efficiency and affordability in particular. The Minister has already started implementing some of the measures ahead of publishing the plan. One issue that is starting to bite - it is very difficult for people - is the retrofitting and home upgrade area whereby the council grant for older people has been changed so they are not able to get a grant for the oil heater. Again, this is something that will be coming up in an emergency situation very often.

That European directive was transposed in relation to that. We are not permitted, and rightly so, to provide grant aid for fossil fuel boilers. There are other options, however, such as hydrotreated vegetable oil, HVO, and other things at which we are looking. We are looking at some supports within that space. We are moving away from fossil fuel boilers.

We are doing well as a country with regard to energy generation through renewables. As I said, it was over 41% last year. However, particularly, although not exclusively, in rural areas, there is a preponderance of both oil and gas boilers. That grant aid is not permitted any more through EU directives that we have transposed. We will look at other options, particularly around HVO and what we might be able to do in that space.

I know the Deputy was at a committee meeting, but I have given some quite substantial responses with regard to energy affordability this morning. The interim report has been published now. The Deputy rightly said that we have actually taken measures in the budget, such as the permanent reduction to 9% VAT, the increase in the fuel allowance and the expansion of the fuel allowance to the working family payment. We are talking about another 50,000 households in that space. I met with the four main energy companies directly. At my request, they have established hardship funds across those providers for the winter months and I am grateful that they have. Energy affordability remains a challenge and a priority for the Government. That is why the main work of the affordability task force will continue through the course of this year to look at network charges and a regulatory framework.

We also need work at European level in relation to the construct of the European market for electricity and how the Spark app in particular is dealt with. That is a discussion I am having at a European level.

Is the Department of climate working with the Department of housing on the delivery of updated wind energy guidelines? I would be grateful for an update on same. Is there any anticipated timeline for when we can expected updated wind energy guidelines? It is of huge concern to the people of Galway East. I appreciate any response.

We are working on them. This has been ongoing for a number of years but since 2023, consultants have been appointed. It is being screened. We are doing a specific piece of work on noise. That is in my Department. We work with the lead Department in relation to the publication of the draft guidelines. This is not passing the buck; it is just a fact that the lead Department is the Department of housing and local government. We are working in conjunction with it. Once the draft guidelines are published, they will be published for public consultation. I want to see an expansion of renewables, which we are seeing, and expansion of wind energy, solar, utilising biomethane and AD and other forms of renewable energy. For clarity's sake and for communities, the guidelines are being updated, need to be updated and will be published in draft form. I cannot give an exact timeframe but work is advanced and nearing completion in that regard. I will respond to the Deputy directly after I consult the Minister, Deputy Browne.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this matter despite the relevant Minister or Minister of State not being here. I ask that anything we discuss be relayed to the Minister and the NCSE. This is incredibly important to all concerned, to the school community, staff, parents and most of all to the children who will not be able to avail of SNA support because a review has indicated that they were not successful. I will run through some of the timeline and give context and emphasise some of the frustrations on everyone's behalf in relation to the process. This is a thriving school in a rural area in Meath. It was unsuccessful in an initial SNA exceptional review, which took place in February 2025. The school considered an appeal and subsequently decided to apply for a focused review as it was aware, as we would have been ourselves, of significant needs in the incoming junior infants class in September 2025. Parents and staff identified this additional need.

They were told in May that the NCSE was no longer accepting applications for reviews as guidance was changing and that is the piece we all would have been aware of. In August they were told they could reapply for an interim review for the incoming students who were not considered in the review back in February. The deadline for that application was 31 August and the school put in a very comprehensive application. Despite the guidelines stating that it would hear back within two weeks - this was at the end of August - it still had no word as recently as a couple of days ago.

The Minister, Deputy McEntee, a constituency colleague of mine, visited this school on 10 October. The school staff pursued it. I also pursued it and I am sure other elected representatives from across the political spectrum pursued it on behalf of the school. Just yesterday or the day before, two months on from the initial application, it received the letter from the NCSE saying that the review was unsuccessful. This was a devastating and demoralising.

As I said, I met staff and parents and many parents have contacted me in relation to this. Under any measure, this school is going above and beyond. It is doing everything it can to provide an inclusive education for children. Staff are stretching themselves at every measure and they have been hit with this. It is devastating for the whole school community, for the principal and for the special education co-ordinator. It factors in additional SNA support and it looks at the potential and the opportunity to work with that and then it is given this news. To add insult to injury, after waiting more than two months, the school is given three days to appeal. That is simply not good enough. There needs to be greater connection and greater understanding in relation to this.

I thank Deputy O'Rourke for raising this Topical Issue in the Chamber. Like the Deputy, I share the same ambition on the delivery of inclusive education in our communities and I commend him on raising this important matter. The Government is fully committed to supporting children with special educational needs to fulfil their full potential and the programme for Government makes a number of commitments to deliver on this objective. The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, has responsibility for co-ordinating and advising on the education provision for children with special educational needs.

Special needs assistants, SNAs, play a central role in the successful inclusion of students with additional and significant care needs in schools by helping to ensure that these students can access an education that enables them to achieve their best outcomes and reach their full potential. By the end of this year, there will be over 23,000 SNAs working in our education system, committed to supporting and nurturing children with special educational needs. The number of SNAs available for allocation has continued to increase annually, resulting in a significant increase in the number of SNAs employed by schools. Budget 2026 provides for a further 1,717 SNA posts, which will bring the total number of SNAs to close to 25,000 by the end of 2026.

The NCSE manages the allocation of the SNAs to schools and it is its responsibility to ensure these resources are allocated to children with the greatest level of need. The NCSE advised each school in June of its allocation for the 2025-26 school year. Each year, schools are advised of their SNA supports, which indicates the NCSE will undertake reviews to ensure SNAs are allocated to the children with the greatest level of need. Such reviews can see an increase or reduction in the level of support or no change in allocation. This has always been part of the work of the NCSE and is necessary in order to ensure resources are allocated in line with the level of need.

I can confirm to the Deputy that in relation to the school referred to by him, Scoil Cholmcille, Skryne, the NCSE has advised that it has been communicating with the school on the deployment of its SNA allocation within the school. The school has also requested the NCSE adviser support in the area of behaviour, on the recommendation of the NCSE’s special educational needs organiser, SENO. The NCSE has confirmed this support was provided to the school in October. The NCSE has further advised that the school submitted a further request for an SNA review in recent days and this will be progressed by the NCSE.

The Department of Education and Youth and the NCSE are committed to delivering an education system of the highest quality, where every child and young person feels valued and is actively supported and nurtured to reach their full potential.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I hope we can take this as a point for raising this case and for follow-through. I know there is a plan to submit for a focused review. The timeline is very short in relation to that. I hope when it goes in that it will be considered favourably. Regarding the interim review, which I mentioned earlier, it is deeply concerning. As I said, this school made a really comprehensive submission in relation to it and only received a written response a couple of days ago. Nobody called out to the school. There was no visit - not to a classroom, to a child or to a staff member. That is totally unacceptable.

As a constituency TD and as my party's education and youth spokesperson, I say there is widespread frustration about how the NCSE and the SENOs go about their business in conducting these assessments and communicating with schools and about the level of responsiveness. I raised this before when we talked about the EPSEN Act review and this is another case in point.

I know many of the people involved and can say with hand on heart they are dedicated professionals and want to provide the best for these kids. That is what we all want for the children in our education system but people have their hands tied behind their back because of this bureaucracy. I acknowledge there are increasing numbers of SNAs, but there are nowhere the number we need. There is a challenge in that but in this case it is inexcusable that additional resources have not been made available. I ask that whatever additional review goes in be considered favourably.

Again, I thank Deputy O'Rourke for giving me an opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister for education and her Department. I appreciate the frustration the Deputy has expressed about the alignment of the NCSE, the SENO and the school. It should not have to be the case that the Deputy has to come in here and express his dissatisfaction with the fact the school has been put in this position. It is incumbent on us all to ensure the system becomes more streamlined, more agile and more responsive. It should be the case that the NCSE, which is in the position of advising and co-ordinating the education provision for children with special educational needs, and any school can discuss these matters in an orderly fashion. I will take the matters the Deputy has raised and relay them to the Minister. As the Deputy mentioned, the school has requested an SNA review in recent days. That is very welcome. I hope that is responded to and advanced as quickly as possible. In any case, it is very important at this time of year that schools are supported and SNA resources are allocated in a timely manner to support students who require care. I again thank the Deputy for bringing this matter to the Chamber.

This time last year we were in the middle of the campaign to be elected to this House. The primary issue in Kildare was the lack of critical infrastructure, including social infrastructure, especially in the north of the county. During the housing crisis throughout the country, Kildare has taken a lot of the housing, particularly as a result of the pressures on Dublin. I welcome a lot of that housing. I am living in a house that was built in recent years. I welcome more housing in my constituency. We saw a 12.8% increase in the population of Kildare North between 2016 and 2022. I have no doubt the population has become a lot higher since then given the amount of housing that has been built. Despite this, we are struggling when it comes to core infrastructure.

On the situation with regard to schools, I will refer to the three-school campus in Celbridge. St. Patrick’s Primary School has been in prefabs since its inception and these structures are falling apart. St. Raphael’s Special School still has not got its new school building. Celbridge Community School is still in temporary accommodation as well.

On water infrastructure and outages, I think of Leixlip, Celbridge and Maynooth and especially the issues at Primrose Hill and Hazelhatch in Celbridge earlier this year.

There is no full-time Garda station in Maynooth, Celbridge, Kilcock or Clane. Maynooth has a population of over 17,500 people and an additional 17,000 students but no full-time Garda station. You would not get it in other parts of the country but for some reason Kildare needs to put up with it time and time again.

On childcare infrastructure, it is impossible for young parents to find a crèche. There is no primary care centre in Maynooth or in Leixlip even though both towns are bulging. There is no community centre in my home town of Maynooth. If a rural town had no community centre there would be uproar but we in the north east of Kildare in particular have to put up with it time and time again.

On playgrounds and recreational spaces, we have been promised a new playground in Maynooth. We have received a new playground in Kilcock, which is welcome, but it has been left in a terrible state since it was finished. Clane’s playground is outdated. An upgrade was pledged for the one in Celbridge by Kildare County Council but still has not been delivered. There is no public swimming pool in the north east of Kildare. There is no public swimming pool for families in Maynooth, Leixlip, Celbridge, Clane and throughout the north west of the county, even though there has been commitment after commitment. There are issues with energy and water, and outages of both, time and time again, as I have said.

If we are expecting communities to take on more housing, which Kildare has done for the past 20 years, we should be building the social infrastructure to match it. Children should be guaranteed a crèche to go to, a school to go to, a doctor to care for them when they are sick and gardaí to look out for the community when there are issues, but these things are not happening. Older people should have a general practitioner they can rely on, but we are not seeing it. My job as a newly elected TD is to ensure the best not only for the people of Kildare but also for the people of the country as a whole, as we all do. However, I suggest that because we are seen as a wealthy county we are not seeing the investment we should.

I thank the Deputy for raising this very important issue. I compliment him on his passion and advocacy for key infrastructure projects in his constituency and for raising the requirement for investment in infrastructure, and its delivery, to become key priorities for the Government. He earlier raised the issues with large-scale renewable energy projects so this very much follows from that.

As highlighted in the programme for Government, delivery of essential infrastructure is a key driver in ensuring our economy’s competitiveness and resilience. In the past five years more than €65 billion has been invested in capital infrastructure projects across the country to improve people’s lives, including through the national development plan. It is estimated that total capital investment in 2025 will be close to €17 billion by the end of the year. This represents the highest annual spend to date in the country and this level of investment is going to increase even further. The revised NDP published in July sets out over €275 billion in public capital investment out to 2035. It is the largest and most significant capital injection in our economy in the history of the State. The Government has prioritised investment towards critical growth-enabling sectors, mainly housing, energy, water and transport, in line with the ambitions in the review to enable the delivery of over 300,000 new homes and to boost our economic competitiveness.

As well as the core housing and competitive objectives, the Government recognises that the delivery of essential infrastructure is a key driver for enabling and fostering balanced regional development. The NDP investment aligns with the national planning framework, Ireland’s planning and spatial strategy, to form Project Ireland 2040, which is an overarching national strategy for social, economic and cultural development. Since Project Ireland 2040 was first launched in 2018, the Government has overseen the delivery of many impactful NDP projects across the country. This includes projects in Kildare North such as the widening of the M7 between Naas and Newbridge; the Sallins bypass; the Maynooth University technology, society and innovation building; a new 1,000-pupil post-primary school in Naas Community College; and Naas library. Numerous small projects have also been delivered or are planned for north Kildare in the housing, education and cultural sectors, including the delivery of hundreds of new housing units over recent years across towns such as Naas, Maynooth and Kilcock. The budget published in October lays out an Exchequer capital expenditure allocation of €19.1 billion, which is an increase of €2 billion on 2025, for increased infrastructure projects and programmes right across the country.

This includes investment in projects in north Kildare such as the development of student accommodation at Maynooth University; the protection and renewal of the heavy rail network and fleet renewal; the development of the DART+ programme; the progression of the Grand Canal greenway; investment in the eastern and midlands region water supply project; the progression of Uisce Éireann's Enfield to Kilcock trunk main project and Leixlip water treatment plant upgrade; and the development of smaller projects in north Kildare across sectors including schools, housing and cultural areas.

Further to the announcement of the 2026 capital priorities on budget day, Ministers will publish their sectoral capital plans this month. They will outline the projects to be prioritised for delivery over the next five years from the increased NDP investment, and will provide further detail to the Deputy on the capital programme and projects to be delivered right across the country, including in Kildare North.

I appreciate the response. One of the key things the Minister of State said was that this is to boost the delivery of new homes. The investments in Kildare North are primarily to accommodate new homes being built. My point is that investment is not being made in the social infrastructure that is required for the existing population, notwithstanding the future population. DART+ and improvements to water infrastructure are welcome but let us be real here. This is about allowing more homes to be built in Kildare. As I have said, I welcome new homes in Kildare. We need as many new homes as possible. However, what I am speaking about here is primary care centres, Garda stations and community centres. These are core elements if a society is to run properly. I have been contacted by families who cannot get a GP. There are new mums who cannot get a GP for themselves or for their children. There are serious issues in towns and villages in rural areas around Kildare but the call-out times for gardaí, through no fault of the Garda division in Kildare, are not good enough. I look at schools that are crumbling and housed in temporary accommodation. This is not good enough for the existing population, notwithstanding all these additional homes we are going to build in Kildare. We need those new homes. That is fine but if we want social cohesion and for people to live a good and normal life, we need to ensure they have the basic services they need and deserve.

The Deputy raises some very important points. I assure him that investment to improve our infrastructure and accelerate infrastructure delivery is a key priority of this Government. As I said earlier, over the coming weeks Ministers will publish their capital investment plans for the next five years. As the Deputy has said, it is critically important that Kildare North features heavily in many of these plans. The Deputy mentioned Garda stations, primary care centres and community centres. We need developments with that type of orientation. It is critically important. The national planning framework has been published. I am sure extensive work has been done on commuter bands and on areas where there is a requirement for additional health services, schools and public amenities. I look forward to seeing these investment plans. It is really important that they are detailed and that they include reference to Kildare North in many sectors, including transport. As the Deputy said earlier, if large-scale developments are being built, that development should be transport-oriented and support public transport, including rail and roads. It is also important that these announcements are not just published in isolation but as part of a collective plan. As a Government, we are very focused on increasing capital development and accelerating delivery. It is important that, through the newly established infrastructure development unit, we see these projects not only being announced but being progressed through the planning and procurement stages and delivered at pace. It is incumbent on us all to continue to raise the level of ambition and to ensure that the revised national development plan, to which over €275 billion has been assigned out to 2035, is delivered in full right across the country.

I raise an issue I dealt with when I was Minister of State at the Department of Health. It is about having an integrated homeless health hub in Cork city. In October 2024, I arranged a meeting between the Department of Health, the Department of housing, the HSE in Cork and Cork City Council. It was agreed that we would all work together to establish a day centre where people who were homeless could go. At the present time, there is accommodation available to these people at night. The vast majority avail of that accommodation although some do not. However, during the day, there is no place for anyone to go. The accident and emergency department at Mercy University Hospital is under severe pressure. People tend to use that. Businesses are also under pressure because people need someplace to go, particularly in wet or cold weather. We have identified a site, a building, but the building's owners are getting concerned that, 12 or 14 months on, there is still nothing signed on the dotted line in relation to this development. Even if it were signed in the morning, it would still take anything up to 12 months before the facility came on stream while 600 people still have no place to go during the day.

There is also a huge advantage from the HSE point of view. It is currently paying out over €2 million in staff costs but these staff are in different locations, providing a range of services to people who are homeless. If there was one hub for all of this work, it would make it far easier for the health service, the city council and all of the support people within social services. This issue really needs to be prioritised. I certainly do not want further delay. There is another risk. There is a property identified in a very good location. It is important that we step up to the mark and progress the project now and that I am not back here again in 12 months' time making the same plea.

I know the Department of Health is not the Minister of State's area but I ask that this be brought to the attention of all of the Ministers. We need to prioritise this issue. We also need to take the pressure off Mercy University Hospital. It is providing an excellent service but it is restricted in the support it can give people who are homeless who are not necessarily looking for medical care but who need someplace to go. We really need to prioritise this project now. Cork is the second biggest city in the country. It is amazing that we do not have such a health hub in the city available for people who are homeless during the day. Obviously, our priority is to reduce the number of people who are homeless. This hub can help with that as well. It can help people to access housing that is suitable for them. At the moment, people who are homeless feel there is no one supporting them. They feel that they are on their own and that there is no dedicated service available to them. I ask that this now be given priority and that it not be delayed further.

I thank Deputy Burke for raising this important matter. I know how passionate he is about this integrated homeless health hub. I have heard him speak about it on many occasions, as he has again today. I welcome the opportunity to take this Topical Issue on behalf of the Minister for Health and to inform the House of the current position relating to the provision of an integrated homeless health hub in Cork city. Cork city has a huge population.

The Minister recognises that the health needs of people experiencing homelessness are complex and multifaceted. The Department of Health is committed to strengthening integrated care pathways for people who are, unfortunately, homeless and who have chronic health needs, based on an inclusion health model to achieve better health outcomes and reduce the incidence of premature death. The Department provided almost €50 million to the HSE for the provision of healthcare services for people who are homeless in 2025. This is an increase of €14 million since 2020.

The HSE national strategic plan to improve the health of people experiencing homelessness in Ireland out to 2027 prioritises integrated care and case management, assertive outreach supports and mental health and addiction supports in its provision of health services to people who are homeless. The HSE capital plan for 2025 provides €1.3 billion for healthcare buildings and equipment that are delivering benefits all over the country. This significant investment in health infrastructure underlines the Government’s commitment to providing quality healthcare in an equitable way to all those who need it. The plan commits to providing funding to expand addiction care facilities for people experiencing homelessness, under section 7 on cross-care services.

The integrated inclusion health hub in Cork City is a joint initiative between Cork City Council and HSE south west aimed at addressing the health and social needs of the growing number of people experiencing homelessness in Cork. As the Deputy is aware, this facility is designed to align with international best practice and to offer a comprehensive range of health and social services tailored to meet the unique needs of homeless families and individuals and those at risk of homelessness. This hub will provide a service centred around the basic needs of the clients presenting, but with a focus on homelessness, housing and migration, and it will be aligned with health. The provision of the service shall reduce the need for emergency department presentations. The integrated inclusion health hub would centralise all services for people who are homeless in one location, remove barriers and increase accessibility and engagement with healthcare services. It will also help to mitigate premature deaths among people who are homeless, with 20 such deaths recorded in the Cork region since 2020.

HSE south west has engaged with HSE Estates to assess the business case, with a view to securing funds in the capital plan. I am advised that HSE south west is working with Cork City Council to agree on a shared stakeholder funding model for the hub, with a view to ensuring optimal value for money. A revised proposal will be prepared once the funding model has been agreed by Cork City Council and HSE south west.

I am a little concerned that we are 14 months on and we still do not have a shared funding model. People who are homeless are in the same position they were in this time last year; the question now is whether they will be in the same position this time next year. The issue needs to be prioritised.

I met with the building owners recently. They are becoming concerned that this issue seems to be dragging on ad infinitum. They will not wait forever. This has been identified as the ideal location. In fairness to the HSE at local level and Cork City Council, they have worked hard together and the people in both organisations have put time and effort into identifying what is best for the people who need the support. We already have the staff in place so no additional staff will be required. The issue is about providing the funding for work to be done on the building to make sure it is adequate for the services that will be provided there. It is important the Department makes sure the HSE, the city council and the Department of housing deliver this within the next three to four months, which means prioritising the funding and then prioritising getting the work done. Quite a bit of work needs to be done on the premises but it could be delivered within a short enough period provided we make the decision now and not in six, nine or 12 months. I ask that this be conveyed back to the Department of Health and that the Department convey it back to the HSE and the city council.

I acknowledge the Deputy's advocacy for this important health hub. We all recognise the need to respond on a nationwide basis to the health needs of people who are homeless. That includes areas outside Dublin and, to the Deputy's point, including Cork city will be a critical investment for the HSE.

I will reiterate to all the Ministers in the Department of Health the need for support for this proposal. The engagement with HSE south west and Cork City Council is ongoing in terms of preparing a funding model. We will in the coming weeks understand the provisions within the new HSE capital plan and these decisions will be made. In budget 2026, over €1.5 million has been provided to improve access to health services for people living in emergency accommodation. That is not taking away from the importance of this capital infrastructure required for HSE south west. Securing funding under the capital plan will be critical to the decision-making process for this to proceed. I will take that back and I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter.

Táim anseo today to speak about an issue related to disability services in my constituency but which affects the wider Dublin area and the country. I will speak about St. Michael's House and about a constituent whose issue I have raised and want to raise again today. St. Michael's House on the Ballymun Road provides a range of services and supports for people with disabilities and their families, from residential supports and independent living to clinical support, day supports and respite. St. Michael's House is also a lead agency for the Dublin CDNT, which supports thousands of children and also has a waiting list for day services.

I want to talk about residential services for older service users. There is currently a residential waiting list for 55 individuals: eight are aged 66 and over, 22 are aged 46 to 65, 15 are aged 31 to 45 and ten are aged 18 to 30. Forty of these individuals are classified as high risk, highlighting the urgent need for placements and increased resources to provide care for them. Unfortunately, due to resource constraints, St. Michael's House placed a pause on new additions to the residential waiting list from 14 March this year.

An issue facing families across the country and my constituency concerns children who are now adults and who have disabilities. Their families are deeply concerned about what will happen when the parents pass away. Who will care for their children? There are also those who do not have the capacity to provide care for their children any more because they have got too old or the needs have increased to the point that it is not sustainable for them to continue to provide care in the home. As I have outlined, there are significant waiting lists.

I have been contacted by the parents of a woman - their youngest child - who is 32 years of age.

She has Down’s syndrome and associated medical and health issues. As well as Down’s syndrome, she has a visual impairment, mobility and balance issues, sleep apnoea, for which she uses a machine, and speech and language difficulties. She attends a St. Michael’s House day service from 9.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. She really enjoys going and participating in the various activities but there are no respite or social supports outside of this for her parents, who are now in their 70s. They are physically, emotionally and mentally exhausted. Their enduring worry is what will happen to her when they die. There are no residential places available for her. The Minister of State can think about that emotional and mental exhaustion of parents in that situation, who are concerned about what will happen to their child when they pass on. Where will she be minded? Who will look after her?

Services like St. Michael’s House are struggling to keep up with demand for respite and residential care, which is leaving families in unimaginable and unsustainable situations as they worry about what will happen to their adult children. Between hospital staffing costs, operation costs and, crucially, the lack of multi-annual funding, they are projecting a funding deficit for 2025. If the Minister of State can give me a response to these questions, I would appreciate it.

I thank Deputy Hearne for raising this important issue and for offering me the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, who is not here today.

Increasing the provision of disability residential services is a key priority for the Government and the HSE. All Deputies across the House will have specific cases relating to the many families who are finding challenges in this regard. There has been significant investment in residential services throughout the tenure of this Government. We are very aware of the need for increased service provision within the disability sector. In acknowledgement of this, the programme for Government commits to tackling waiting lists for specialist disability services by progressively implementing the action plan for disability services out to 2026 and resourcing and delivering on its targets.

In budget 2026, the Government has allocated a record €3.8 billion to disability services, reflecting our commitment to the expansion of services to meet the needs of people with disabilities. This represents an increase of almost 20% year on year and an overall increase of €1.8 billion since 2020. Approximately €2.21 billion of the funding secured will enable the Department to deliver residential services for over 9,000 disabled people, enabling them to live as independently as possible in their local communities. In 2026, this means continued support for people currently accessing residential services and an additional €65 million to support the delivery of additional residential responses and supports for adults and children with disabilities. Residential service delivery expectations will be confirmed in the coming weeks in the forthcoming HSE national service plan for 2026.

The Deputy raised a specific case in St. Michael's House. It is a pivotal provider of disability support, particularly much-needed residential supports. I am informed by the HSE that the organisation provides residential supports to 410 adults and a small number of children with disabilities across 79 centres, mostly in Dublin and the wider Leinster area. It is the intention of this Government to continue to support organisations such as St. Michael's House to provide specialist disability supports to those who require them and to continue to support people with disabilities to live meaningful and fulfilling lives, with a person-centred approach across all services provided.

The Deputy will be aware that the significant demand for specialist disability services across all regional health areas nationally exceeds what can currently be provided. This is reflective of the additional 20% budget that has been provided. While the Department is working alongside the HSE to move towards more planned provision in residential services, the nature and level of demand is such that the placements delivered tend to be in response to shorter term priority needs. It is important to recognise that the HSE faces significant challenges with regard to increasing the provision of residential placements, namely, the availability of suitable housing, staffing, the increasing cost of providing residential care, the changing needs of service users and regulation.

In order to address these challenges, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality continues to engage with the Department of housing, as well as the HSE, to explore various ways of responding to demand to provide suitable living solutions that give people with disabilities greater independence and choice in their daily lives.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit but that is an inadequate response. He acknowledged that the HSE is facing significant challenges in the provision of residential placements and in the availability of suitable housing and staffing, as well as the increasing costs of providing residential care and the changing needs of service users. He has outlined the challenge, but we need to see solutions. While there is an increase in funding, it is clearly not enough and that is the issue. What about families like the one in the case I raised, where the parents of a child of 32 years of age with Down’s syndrome, who are in their 70s, are absolutely terrified about her future and where she will go? We have a significant waiting list for people, eight of them, as I said, over 66 years, and 22 aged between 46 and 65 years. These are high-risk situations. We need a much more considered and significant funding response that addresses these challenges. We cannot just let them go on. People who have disabilities have every right to a decent standard of living, an independent life and supported housing and to be able to live a quality life like anybody else, but as disabled people explain over and over, along with their carers and families, that is not the situation. Yes, the Government is dealing with and responding to decades and decades - indeed, since the foundation of the State - of inadequate support for people with disabilities, but we have to get it right now. We have to provide that republic of equality, particularly for disabled people. We need extra effort for cases like these and services like St. Michael’s House to ensure people with disabilities have that quality of life, and so their families do too. I ask the Government to do more on that.

Again, I agree with the Deputy. I think we are all in agreement that we do need to commit to tackling the waiting lists. That is why we have a dedicated Minister of State with responsibility for disability at the Cabinet, working within the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, as part of the wider Government response to increase the number of residential places and improve capacity within the sector as a whole. The action plan for disability services out to 2026 is designed to provide additional funding but also to help build capacity within the services and meet the future needs around residential placements through the provision of over 900 residential care places to tackle not just the current need but also the unmet need, and also to ensure that supply keeps pace with demand because while one bed may be filled this week, another bed may be required next week.

We have seen progress in 2024. Last year, over 220 new additional residential places were delivered. As of August this year, we had over 142 new residential places. In the most recent budget, an allocation of over €65 million in additional funding was secured for additional disability residential responses. That will be set out in the HSE’s national service plan for 2026. We want to continue to support the likes of St. Michael’s House. Over 1,200 services are being funded by HSE Dublin north county and Dublin city and west, including many in the Deputy’s constituency. I assure him that the Department is working alongside service providers such as St. Michael’s House and the HSE to address these challenges and to support providers right across the country to carry out the vital work they do in the delivery of services to those with a disability.