I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 39 and the name of the Member in each case:

Deputy Thomas Gould - To discuss the bus service in Cork city.

Deputy Ryan O'Meara - To discuss the establishment of an SATU in the HSE Mid West region.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne - To discuss the need for the development of Bunclody Community College, County Wexford.

Deputy John Clendennen - To discuss the cumulative regulatory burden and rising cost of doing business.

Deputy Michael Cahill - To discuss delays in payments to subcontractors by Uisce Éireann.

Deputy Paul Donnelly - To discuss the use of scramblers by those under 16 years of age.

Deputy Fionntán Ó Súilleabháin - To discuss the school bus transport system in Wicklow and Wexford.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman - To discuss reform of the Taxsaver commuter ticket scheme to include shared mobility services.

Deputy Marie Sherlock - To discuss the use of periodic payment orders in the courts.

Deputy John Connolly - To discuss the provision of appropriate public housing for families that provide foster care.

Deputy Tom Brabazon - To discuss the proposed new Garda station at Northern Cross.

Deputy Rory Hearne - To discuss the cessation of the financial contribution scheme in Dublin North-West.

Deputy Pa Daly - To discuss measures to prevent the spread of harmful content on social media platforms.

Deputy Louis O'Hara - To discuss the need for a 24-hour rapid response vehicle at Tuam ambulance base.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke - To discuss the Government response to the rejection of the workforce development plan proposals by SNAs.

Deputies Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, Séamus McGrath and Pádraig O'Sullivan - To discuss the State acquiring the Bessborough site in Cork city to provide a memorial.

Deputies Gary Gannon, Ruairí Ó Murchú· - To discuss issues being created in the courts system by the new legal aid model.

Deputies Ciarán Ahern, Seán Crowe, Paul Murphy, Aengus Ó Snodaigh and James Geoghegan - To discuss the feasibility of continuing MetroLink from the city to south-west Dublin.

Deputies Shane Moynihan and John Lahart - To discuss the urgent situation concerning a Tusla-funded service provider for children.

The matters raised by Deputies Thomas Gould, Roderic O'Gorman, Shane Moynihan and John Lahart, John Clendennen and Pa Daly have been selected for discussion.

Seanad Éireann has passed the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026, without amendment.

Seanad Éireann has passed the Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, without amendment.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes that:

— research by the Economic and Social Research Institute and the University of Limerick from a survey of more than 720 post-primary schools showed that more than three in ten mandated the purchase of digital devices, including 17 per cent of Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS), and that there is a risk of growing inequalities in the education system;

— the Barnardos Back to School 2025 survey showed the average cost of digital devices for second level schools has reached €430, up from €121 in 2022;

— since 2015 the Society of St Vincent de Paul has received nearly 3,000 requests for assistance with educational digital devices;

— savings to parents from the Primary Schoolbooks Scheme are now being undermined by requests for mandatory Information and Communications Technology (ICT) equipment that is more and more essential for schoolwork;

— the Grant Scheme for ICT Infrastructure 2026 for schools was cut by €15 million, to €35 million in 2025, remained at €35 million in 2026 and there is no dedicated funding for repair or maintenance; and

— manufacturers have warned that the shortage of memory chips will lead to significant price increases for laptops and tablets;

further notes on school costs that:

— The Zurich Cost of Education in Ireland 2026 survey, shows an annual cost to parents of €1,794 for primary school and €2,928 for secondary school, and that the number of parents taking out loans to help with costs doubled from 2025 to 2026;

— Budget 2026 discontinued the two double Child Benefit payments, removed energy credits, the €400 once-off Working Family Payment, and the once-off family support €100 lump sum per qualifying child;

— State Examination Fees have been reimposed on Junior and Leaving Certificate students;

— the School Transport Scheme fees have increased to €100 per child with the family cap increasing by €95 to €220, the fee for primary school children doubled from €50, and increased by a third, €25, for post-primary students;

— the increased cost of energy, insurance, waste and other essential services are not being met from the Capitation Grant, leaving schools reliant on voluntary donations;

— at least 47 schools have been referred to the Financial Support Services Unit of the Department of Education and Youth in the 2025/2026 school year, due to rising costs, an increase of 38 per cent on last year;

— the Back-to-School Clothing and Footwear allowance (BSCFA) has been extended to 2- and 3-year-olds, but the €100 cut in the rate in 2024 has never been restored, and the income thresholds remain very restrictive;

— parents are provided with no support for other substantial costs including mock exam and correction fees, school trips and tours, after-school and summer extracurricular activities and camps, and students in transition year have additional expenses above normal year-to-year costs; and

— the 2017 circular on affordable uniforms is not being enforced, with large numbers still using crested or branded uniforms rather than generic uniform items;

recalls that:

— the Minister for Education and Youth has written to all schools noting that they cannot make it mandatory for pupils to purchase laptops or tablets, but there is no enforcement of this guidance;

— there is still no ban on voluntary contributions forcing parents to have to fund essential school activities; and

— the introduction of new curriculums for Leaving Certificate subjects has imposed further extra costs on post-primary schools; and

calls on the Government to:

— address the growing inequality from the digital divide and ensure all children have access to digital technology in school at no additional cost to parents;

— introduce enforceable guidelines for schools on the requirement for laptops and tablets in schoolwork that protects families from the costs of having to buy digital equipment;

— restore the school Grant Scheme for ICT Infrastructure 2026 to at least €50 million, and ensure there is a separate stream of funding for the maintenance and repair of equipment;

— ensure students have access to a national loan scheme when laptops or tablets are required for school project work;

— remove State Examination Fees, and reverse the increases to the School Transport Scheme fees;

— restore the €100 cut to the BSCFA and expand income thresholds to increase eligibility and ensure more working families qualify;

— ban voluntary contributions and ensure that school capitation rates are increased in Budget 2027 to meet the actual costs of running a school; and

— mandate schools to use non-branded uniform clothing and ensure that parents have a choice of supplier to ensure competition on costs.

Parents across Ireland are sitting at kitchen tables trying to work out how they are going to pay for another school year. For far too many families, the excitement of a child returning to school has been replaced by financial anxiety. Increasingly, parents are being forced into debt simply to educate their children. In one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, that should shame every single one of us. Education is supposed to be the great equaliser. It should be the pathway that allows every child to achieve their potential, regardless of where they come from or what their parents earn. That has always been a core Labour Party belief. It was the principle that guided Niamh Bhreathnach when she transformed education in this country. She understood that Government should remove barriers to education, not create new ones. The barriers facing families today may be different but the principle has not changed. The Labour Party believes opportunity should be determined by talent, effort and ambition, not by the balance in a parent's bank account.

Technology has transformed education for the better and it is now an essential part of modern schooling. If digital learning is essential, then access to digital technology must also be essential. It cannot depend on whether a family can find another €430 at the end of August. Equality of opportunity means very little if opportunity comes with a price tag that thousands simply cannot afford. The Government cannot claim it did not know this was happening. It has had the research from the ESRI and the University of Limerick. It has heard the warnings from Barnardos and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. It has heard from principals, teachers and parents, yet the response has simply not matched the scale of the problem. The research tells us that almost three in every ten secondary schools now require students to purchase digital devices. Even more worrying, almost one in five DEIS schools has introduced these requirements. The very schools established to reduce educational disadvantage are now asking some of the most financially stretched families in Ireland to spend hundreds of euro on technology simply so that their children can participate fully in school. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has received 3,000 requests for assistance with educational digital devices. Those are not just figures in a report. They represent parents taking out loans, relying on credit cards and sacrificing their own needs or the needs of other children because they refuse to let their children fall behind.

As a former teacher, I know that teachers learn quickly. We see the child who quietly falls behind because they do not have the same resources as everyone else. We see parents apologising because they simply cannot afford another payment. Teachers will always do everything they can to support those students, but teachers should not ever be expected to compensate for Government failures. This is no longer simply a digital divide. It has become an education divide. A child without access to the technology required by their school is not simply missing out on a laptop but on opportunities. If access to learning depends on family income, then we are failing in our duty to provide equality of opportunity.

The Labour Party welcomed the free books scheme because it genuinely helped many families but let us not pretend free books make education free. Free books do not pay for the hidden costs. Families do not experience Government decisions one at a time; they experience them all together. Government sees separate policies where parents see one enormous bill.

The Minister has written to schools stating laptops and tablets cannot be made mandatory; however, parents, teachers and children know the reality. If a child cannot complete assignments or fully participate in class without a device, then that device has become mandatory in everything but name. We need to stop pretending otherwise and introduce enforceable protections for families. As schools become more dependent on technology than ever before, the Government has cut the ICT grant by almost €15 million. That grant stands at just €35 million with no dedicated funding for repairs or maintenance. Schools are expected to deliver 21st century education with 20th century resources. The Government is not reducing the cost of education; it is simply moving the bill from the Department of education to the kitchen table.

The pressure on families does not end there. Parents have seen school transport charges increase and State examination fees return. Schools continue to rely on so-called volunteer contributions because capitation has failed to keep pace with the real cost of running a school. At least 47 schools have been referred to the financial support services unit in the Department in the academic year 2026 because they cannot make ends meet. That is not a failure of principals or teachers; it is the consequence of political choices.

The Labour Party believes there is a better way. We call for enforceable national guidelines on digital devices, the restoration of the ICT grant to at least €50 million, a national loan scheme so every child can access a device where required, the reversal of increased transport and examination fees, the restoration of the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance, proper capitation funding and genuine choice for parents when buying school uniforms.

This debate comes down to one simple question: do we want an education system where every child has the same opportunity to succeed or do we want opportunity to increasingly depend on what their parents can afford? The Labour Party has made its choice. Poverty should never determine potential. Education should be the ladder that lifts children out of disadvantage, not another bill that pushes families further into it. Education should open doors; it should never open overdrafts. I commend the motion to the House.

I thank my Labour Party colleague, Deputy Kenny, for tabling this important motion which highlights a massive issue for many families across the country. The cost of education report by Zurich shows the annual cost of sending a child to primary school is €1,794. Sending a child to secondary school is even more expensive at €2,928. This means parents could be paying anything up to €32,000 just to put their child through what is supposed to be free education.

The Labour Party is clear that free education means free. It does not mean voluntary contributions, State examination fees or €700-plus on laptops or tablets. Uniform costs are putting financial pressure on working families who, in most cases, do not qualify for the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. Parents contacting my office tell me they are forced to go to one supplier due to the requirement for school branding. These parents pay over €160 on uniforms and over €100 on shoes for secondary school students, according to a recent report by the Irish League of Credit Unions. It is a lot for parents who are struggling with the cost of living. Government needs to intervene and mandate schools to introduce non-branded uniform clothing so parents can shop around for the most affordable prices.

I previously raised the ongoing issue of digital devices for students in this Chamber. This continues to be a source of concern for many working families and there is no clarity on whether these devices are mandatory. I have received three responses from the Minister's Department which state there is no requirement for digital devices in junior or senior cycle. The Minister has stated this in the replies and confirmed it to schools as well, yet principals and teachers have highlighted to me that the curriculum mandates digital devices for additional assessment components, AACs. I raised this in a parliamentary question to which the Minister replied, "There is no requirement currently under the new subject specifications for students to have their own laptops or devices; or devices of a particular type." This is extremely confusing for many school communities and parents who are having to bear the costs of these devices. Working families coming into my office are being told they must pay €700 or more for these devices and that they can only be bought from a particular supplier. People from all over the country tell me there is no free education in Ireland any more. One dad told me he had to buy three laptops, one for each of his three children. That will cost him over €2,000 - a cost the Minister's Department is saying he does not need to incur. That is before uniform costs and voluntary contributions are factored in. A family in County Meath tell me they are paying €600 while another in Cork tell me they are paying the same. Parents are paying up to €1,000 for laptops. Members can imagine the pressure that is putting on families. Some have to pay insurance on top of this, which is adding another €100 to the cost. Families in Kildare, Meath, Cork, Dublin, Wicklow, Waterford, Longford, Tipperary and throughout the country are contacting me and other Labour Party members saying they do not know how they will afford these costs.

The cost of education keeps increasing year on year. Government was rightly praised for introducing the free books scheme but parents tell me that what the scheme gives on one hand is being taken away by the cost of laptops on the other. It is time for the Minister and her Department to provide clarity to school communities and parents by making a statement to the Dáil on this matter. We cannot let parents spend the summer months worrying about this.

Every year, Bus Éireann and the Department of education places enormous pressure on those applying for school transport, which is another cost. This is a massive issue for many parents in my constituency of Kildare South who are fighting every year for a place for their child. Even if they are lucky enough to get a place, these families could face paying up to €200 for primary school transport and €220 for secondary school transport. In a cost-of-living crisis, this is an attack on working families who are doing their best to get their children to school and to get to work on time.

When we factor in voluntary contributions, digital devices, uniforms, State examination fees, mock examination fees, school transport fees and more, we no longer have free education. We no longer have equal starts for each of our children. The Government needs to deliver on the State's promise of free education. We ask it to listen to the Labour Party, to parents and to school communities, and to show up for workers.

If we truly live in a Republic, we need to deal with the myth of free education. I have two children going to secondary school: one in TY and the other doing the junior cert. I have been through a lot of the cycle. My wife and I can afford the costs imposed but, over the summer, numerous families will be coming to my clinics saying they cannot afford what is ahead of them. In a Republic and a wealthy country like ours, we need to call out this myth.

I acknowledge the advances made on schoolbooks but when we talk about the cost of laptops and iPads, there is no point in telling parents about the circular and the Minister saying they are not mandatory. There is not a single parent who does not want to do the best for their children. If a certain percentage of students in the school have these devices, instead of saying they are not mandatory, we should ensure everybody is on a level playing field as we head into the 2026-2027 school year. That is the way we should be looking at it. In many schools, there is a digital divide, which is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Many people come to me about the ongoing costs they are facing. One woman told me her daughter is going into TY and the cost the family is budgeting for is well over €1,000. They considered not letting her do TY - letting her instead advance straight into fifth year - because they would not be able to afford it.

That is not a choice any family should be having to make. There are the issues of transport fees, stationery fees, the ridiculous voluntary contributions, transition year, branded school uniforms and €300 for a PE uniform, which is insane. My colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, whom I want to commend, has outlined what we need to do to deal with these issues, namely, capitation grants, ICT grants, back to school allowances and all of that.

I ask the Minister to please listen to the Labour Party. Our party truly believes that, when we in a republic say that we have free education, it should really mean free education.

This motion could not have come at a better time. Last week, a constituent was on to me. She told me that her child had finished school on Tuesday, 30 June and the next day the first payment request from the school had landed in her inbox. That is not the end of it. Between now and August, parents will receive email after email or app notification after app notification reminding them to pay. Sometimes, these reminders come twice a week. Then, throughout the school year, every time the parents open the school app, there is a request for more money. This is not the fault of schools, which are trying to operate with inadequate funding. The families are being asked to bridge the gap and the costs just keep mounting. It is the airtex tops, the school trousers, the crested uniforms and the voluntary contributions that we know are not voluntary. Then comes secondary school and the bills get even bigger. Parents are expected to buy Chromebooks, laptops and iPads, often designated through one supplier at inflated prices. One constituent mentioned to me that she had just paid €980 for her daughter who was starting secondary in September. The device cost hundreds more than it would have in Power City. Then she has to buy Microsoft Office, again, even though she already owns it. I do not understand why the Department has not established an IT service for schools. These devices are now mandatory, more or less, yet parents are carrying the full burden.

It feels like the company Wriggle has an exclusive arrangement and no real competition. This is not an isolated incident. I hear it repeatedly from parents across my constituency. On top of that, the Government has brought back State examination fees. School transport charges have doubled, particularly for people going from zone 1 to zone 2, for kids in Rush and Lusk accessing the Loreto Secondary School in Balbriggan. For families in Dublin Fingal West, particularly Ballyboughal, the situation is worse. The school bus service that goes from Ballyboughal to Lusk Community College forces parents to drive their kids to the outskirts of the town, absorbing fuel costs. That bus needs to go through the village so that students can walk to the bus. That should be looked at in the coming year.

The message parents are getting is simple: at every stage of their children's education, they are met with another bill. Education is supposed to be free but for too many families it no longer feels that way. The cost of sending a child to school has become one of the biggest financial pressures for working families. Parents are doing everything they can but they cannot keep being treated as the Department of education's funding model. It is time for the Government to recognise the reality families are living with and take meaningful action to reduce the cost of education, instead of shifting more and more of the burden onto parents.

We all know that school costs continue to weigh heavily on families. I commend my Labour colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, for proposing this important motion at this time. We are all hearing it from people in our constituencies. I hear it weekly from residents of Dublin Bay South. Desperate parents are telling me what they have to sacrifice to ensure that their children can feel normal at school. People are utterly squeezed by the education policies of the Government and, indeed, the schools. It causes immense distress to parents, principals and teachers but most of all, it is impacting on children in Dublin Bay South and every other constituency. Children are going without essential educational equipment or are suffering the trauma of seeing their parents grappling with financial pressures, taking out loans to pay off loans and going without basic essentials just to fund an education that, as my colleagues have said, is free in name only.

This week, research from the Irish League of Credit Unions shows that more than one in four families are getting into debt over school costs. Nearly 60% of parents say that back to school costs are a financial burden. It is no wonder. The average so-called voluntary contribution in primary schools is close to €100 per child and €150 in secondary schools.

I know that the Government will say what it has done to ease the pressures on families. I anticipate that is what the Minister will be saying. We acknowledge progress on hot school meals and schoolbooks. These are policies that Labour has been pushing for years. However, half of the respondents to the credit union survey say that their costs have gone up since last year. The trend is going in the wrong direction. Education is becoming less accessible due to costs, when education in a republic must be a right and not a privilege.

Deputy Kenny rightly focused on the digital divide in his motion. We know that the Minister has written to schools to offer guidance. I am looking at the letter. It clarifies that there is no requirement for students to have their own laptop or device for the junior or senior cycles. That is welcome. However, the Minister then says she appreciates that decisions on the use of digital devices rests with the board of management of each school. This is despite the fact that she acknowledges, in some cases, that families have been directed by schools towards commercial credit arrangements to meet the cost of buying a digital device for their children. As others have said, no parent wants their child to be without a digital device when others in the class have them. This is mere guidance; it does not really offer much support to parents. We have learned that three in ten schools are still requiring that parents cough up the expense. In a cost-of-living crisis, parents need the Minister of State to have their backs and to support them, as our motion asks, by restoring grants, reducing fees and enforcing what is now only guidance and is being ignored by many schools that are still requiring parents to purchase digital devices.

The schools need to be supported, too. Labour has been to the fore in looking for adequate supports for schools. Principals tell us that they feel they have no choice but to levy parents because the public funding they receive is just not enough to provide the supports they need to ensure that children will be taught the digital skills that will help them access decent jobs. High-quality education costs money and the Labour Party believes that the Government need to do more to ensure resourcing in education.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this motion. I recognise and share the genuine concern felt by many families at the beginning of the new school year, which can bring real and often significant financial pressure. I have listened to parents who have described the financial pressures they face when a number of education-related costs arise at the same time. That is why the Government has made affordability a central focus of education policy.

The concerns reflected in this motion are ones that I have heard directly from parents and it is important that we continue to help families to meet these costs in a practical, evidence-based and sustainable way. While digital technology can greatly enhance teaching and learning, no family should be placed under financial strain because of an expectation that they purchase a device. As our schools continue to embrace the opportunities of digital learning, we must ensure that access to technology remains fair and inclusive for all families.

I am very conscious that parents can feel under pressure when some schools seek the use of digital devices for learning. That is why, on 25 May, I wrote directly to all schools and made it very clear that there was no requirement for students to have their own personal devices for school. I encouraged schools to consider how existing ICT supports and funding could be used to meet students' needs before any expectation was placed on parents to purchase devices. I asked schools to carefully consider the financial impact of any digital device arrangements on families. In particular, I asked schools to engage with all parents and not just their parents' associations before making a decision on the use of digital devices. I also asked schools to ensure that no student was disadvantaged because of their circumstances.

While digital technologies can support teaching, learning and assessment, the way in which they are used should be guided by the educational needs of each school. That is reflected in the requirement for every school to have a digital learning plan that sets out a clear vision for digital learning. We know from the research commissioned by the Department and published by the OECD in 2025 that access to digital technologies alone does not guarantee improved learning outcomes. Rather, their effective use depends on deliberate, pedagogically informed decisions about how and when technology is used to support specific learning objectives.

This emphasises the importance of schools taking a planned and evidence-based approach to the use of digital technologies. To support this, the Department issued guidance to schools last May on the use of digital devices and the cost considerations for students and parents. The guidance asked schools to place affordability, equity and value for money at the centre of their decision-making and before introducing any expectation that families purchase devices to consider whether students' needs can be met through shared devices or school-managed loan schemes funded through the existing ICT supports.

I am aware that Deputies have called for further measures. I share the fundamental objective behind those calls and I strongly believe that no child should be placed at a disadvantage in his or her education because he or she does not have access to a digital device. At the same time, we must recognise the way our school system operates. Under the Education Act 1998, schools and boards of management have responsibility for decisions at local level while operating within national policy. That balance is important. It allows schools to respond to their own circumstances, their own students and their own educational priorities, but it also means that decisions about digital devices should be grounded in pedagogy, informed by engagement with parents and students and mindful of affordability for families.

That is why the Government has taken a balanced approach that involves clear guidance, significant investment in school ICT infrastructure and flexibility for schools to respond to the needs of their own communities. My objective is straightforward - every student should have access to the benefits of digital learning regardless of his or her family's financial circumstances. Technology should support better educational outcomes and greater opportunities for learners while remaining accessible, affordable and inclusive for all. While digital devices are a particular and growing concern, I fully recognise that the cost pressures on families go much wider. Deputies have also raised issues relating to school uniforms, transport fees, voluntary contributions, capitation funding and the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance.

I will turn first to school uniforms because this is an area where practical measures can make a meaningful difference for families. School uniform policy has traditionally been a matter for each school’s board of management, reflecting local needs and traditions. However, Circular 32/2017 makes clear that schools should take practical steps to reduce costs for families, including using generic items where possible, avoiding unnecessary exclusive supplier arrangements, using sew-on or iron-on crests and consulting with parents. We recognise that more can be done. That is why a working group, including the National Parents Council and education partners, is reviewing the circular to strengthen and update the guidance. We are also commencing work to promote uniform swap shops across primary schools, helping families save money while supporting sustainability.

Since September 2025, all students in the free education scheme, almost one million children and young people, have benefited from free school books and core classroom resources. This represents an investment of €160 million and the full delivery of the programme for Government commitment to provide free school books for every child.

We are also maintaining our commitment to affordable, accessible school transport. The school transport scheme, which Bus Éireann operates on behalf of my Department, has expanded significantly in recent years. Since 2018, the number of children and young people using the service had grown from 117,800 pupils in 2018 to over 180,000 pupils in 2025, which equates to an increase of close to 54%. It is worth highlighting that for the coming school year, a primary school ticket will cost 55 cent per school day, a post-primary ticket will cost approximately 60 cent per school day, and the maximum daily cost to a family will be no more than €1.32, regardless of the number of children per family who use the service.

To help cover the cost of clothing, as of this month, the Department of Social Protection issued back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance payments totalling €47.8 million to over 123,000 families in respect of over 229,000 children. The scheme has been extended this year to include children aged two and three and now covers eligible children between the ages of two and 17, and 18 and 22 if returning to second-level education.

A central tenet of our education policy is that schools need to always engage openly with parents and students - to listen as well as to inform them. That is the principle at the heart of the Education (Student and Parent Charter) Bill, which is progressing through the Oireachtas and is expected to go to Committee Stage before the end of this year. When enacted, this legislation will require every school to consult with parents and students on key policies and activities. It will set clear expectations for communication, transparency and respect between schools, parents and students.

We have also taken major steps to support schools with their running costs. In budget 2026, my Department secured €39 million to increase capitation funding, giving schools greater flexibility to cover running costs. This includes an increase of €50 per pupil in primary schools, €20 per student in post-primary schools and additional support for DEIS and special schools. Over the past three budgets, capitation funding has increased by nearly 50% at primary level and 28.5 % at post-primary level, which is a very substantial uplift.

I again thank all the Deputies for bringing this motion forward. The concerns raised today are real and reflect the pressures that many families experience at the start of the school year and they are concerns I also share. The Government's approach is practical and focused on easing pressure on families. The Government is supporting families through free school books, the expansion of hot school meals, increased capitation funding, continued investment in school transport, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance, the strengthened guidance on school uniforms and digital devices. School costs should never stand in the way of a child taking part fully in school life. No family should feel that their child is at a disadvantage because of the cost of uniforms, transport, digital devices or other school-related expenses. That is why we will continue to work with schools, parents, students and education partners to reduce costs to support inclusion and to ensure that every child can participate fully and confidently in education.

I thank the Minister for her considered response. We need to get rid of voluntary contributions and move to generic school uniforms. This is something that has been done in the UK. It is much more cost-effective and efficient because the average cost of sending a child to primary school in this country is now €1,794 and the average cost of sending a child to secondary school is €2,928. With our ever-increasing digital world, apparently everything is online and it is somewhat impossible to be a member of society and not have to rely on technology. Now more than ever, students are forced to rely on technology such as laptops, tablets and other devices in order to fulfil the basic requirements of their school education. If a student does not have access to one of these devices or access to one at home, there is often no alternative and that could leave them excluded. Many families are forced to pay hundreds and thousands, particularly with the rising cost of microchips, for these devices. In a country experiencing a greatly increased cost-of-living crisis with everything having gone up exponentially in price, the last thing families need is another cost to deal with and that is the cost of these tablets or laptop devices. A study by the ESRI and the University of Limerick showed that of more than 720 schools, three in ten required the purchase of a digital device. We really need the Government to take action to address this and to help reduce the numerous costs so many families have to face just to secure a quality education for their children. This digital divide is resulting in a severe and growing level of inequality where so many communities, students and families are unable to purchase the devices they desperately need for their children's education.

What we are trying to do with this motion is to ensure that all students have access to the technology they need in school by ensuring that the guidance supplied by the Minister that schools cannot mandate the purchase of digital technology is mandated and enforced and that, in instances where technology is needed, there is funding and a national loan scheme to support students who are unable to provide these materials for themselves.

I commend my colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, on bringing this motion to the floor of the Dáil. One line from his contribution this morning is at the nub of everything, where he said, "Poverty should never determine potential." That is the key component of this motion.

What is happening to many families throughout this country is nothing short of unacceptable. Every year, parents brace themselves for the back to school season and, every year, the financial pressure grows heavier. Now, on top of books, uniforms, transport fees, exam charges and so-called voluntary contributions, families are being told they must purchase digital devices costing €400, €500 and sometimes even more. It is simply outrageous and it is already pushing hard-pressed households to the pin of their collars.

We know the facts. The ESRI and University of Limerick found that three in ten secondary schools mandate digital devices, including 17% of DEIS schools - the very schools serving families least able to absorb these costs. Barnardos tells us that the average cost of a device has skyrocketed to €430 - which I think we will all agree is a most conservative estimate - up from €121 - which is also conservative - just a few years ago. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has received 3,000 requests to help with digital equipment since 2015. These are real families and real children who are suffering real stress. I have spoken to parents who were choosing between paying the electricity bill or buying a tablet their child must have in order to participate in class. Parents who are already struggling with rising rents, food prices and energy costs are now being told that, without a laptop, their child will fall behind. It is shameful that the State's own free book scheme savings are being wiped out by digital demands that schools have no business imposing without the proper funding.

Let us be clear: the Government has also cut the ICT grant. It has failed to provide maintenance funding. It has reimposed exam fees, increased transport charges and left schools so underfunded that 47 of them have had to seek financial support just to keep the lights on. Meanwhile, families are expected to pick up the tab.

This motion is not radical; it is basic fairness. We are calling for enforceable guidelines, proper ICT funding, a national loan scheme, the removal of exam fees, the reversal of transport fee hikes, the restoration of the back-to-school allowance and a ban on voluntary contributions that are voluntary in name only. Families cannot take any more. The digital divide is widening and unless this Government acts it will become a chasm. I urge every Member, Government and Opposition, to support this motion and stand with parents and children who deserve so much more.

As the Minister knows, parents are paying hand over fist for ancillary school costs, be it for school uniforms, laptops, school transport or the so-called voluntary contributions. We cannot say we have free education in this country if the whole architecture that enables proper participation is hugely expensive for parents. What is so regrettable is that some of the good work that is being done, like the school books scheme - something that has been long-championed by Aodhán Ó Ríordáin and others in the Labour Party - is being eroded by these additional costs now being faced by parents. The benefits of technology in education have to be available to everyone on an equal footing. Gone are the days when you would just have a hand-me-down textbook and a few Aisling copybooks that would only cost a few quid. Some parents are now having to pay hundreds of euro for devices if their children are to just fully participate in school. As this motion states, we are at risk of creating a digital divide and new inequalities in our education system unless we put further supports in place for low-income families. Kevin Shortall, principal of St. Aidan's Community School in Tallaght, in my constituency, said on RTÉ last week that the choice to use digital services is not available to some schools because of the associated costs for parents.

There are larger issues of funding for schools that I would like to touch on now. The Labour Party has been calling for a long time for an end to voluntary contributions. Schools should not have to go cap in hand to parents just to keep the lights on. Voluntary contributions would not be necessary if capitation grants were where they need to be. I welcome the fact capitation grants have increased in recent years but the costs in schools associated with that are also rising at a faster rate and the capitation grants still are not enough. Just last year, the Sacred Heart Junior School in Killinarden almost had to shut its doors because it simply could not keep up with utility bills. Thankfully, that school secured an early payment of its capitation grant, but only after months of anxiety and stress, and, even still, that does not address the underlying financial issue. It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. The school will need to get this year's capitation grant earlier again and the cycle just seems to continue. As the capitation grant is not covering basic operating costs, many school boards feel that to avoid running deficits, which they will get into trouble for from their governing bodies, they have to find funds elsewhere. Some schools will fundraise via parents' associations or by increasing the voluntary contribution, but that will not always be possible or enough. The ever-growing need for increased revenues coming into schools means that things like school halls or classrooms, which are community assets that are routinely used by community groups or after-school services, are now being rented out at higher and higher rates, forcing community groups to fundraise themselves in order to keep going, or to opt out. Much of that fundraising comes from the same source, which is the parents of the kids using those after-school services.

This all comes back to funding our schools. All too often, despite the much publicised overspend in the education budget, schools still have to fight tooth and nail to get the resources they need. I never predicted that so much of my time as a TD would be spent working with local schools on funding and resourcing issues. In the past few months alone, I have worked with ten different schools. Scoil Maelruain Junior National School, for example, will lose a teacher next school year and will have to merge classes, as will St. Mary's BNS. St. Dominic's National School is looking for DEIS plus status. Sancta Maria College wants the Department of education to finish building its PE hall. Ballyroan BNS is looking for a new school building. Abacas Special School needs a new school building. Saplings Special School needs an emergency works grant.

Sin é, a Theachta. Tá an t'am caite.

The list of schools goes on. A lot of these issues are on the Minister's desk and I really hope they will be looked at favourably.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I thank the Labour Party for bringing it forward. The cost of sending children to school has become increasingly unacceptable. Education should be the great equaliser but for too many families the start of the school year brings anxiety, stress and impossible financial decisions. No parent should have to worry about whether they can afford a school uniform, a so-called voluntary contribution or, increasingly, an expensive digital device simply to ensure their child can participate fully in class. Digital devices alone cost hundreds of euro - up to €800. The Government insists they are not needed and not mandatory but guidance without enforcement offers no comfort at all. The resulting growing digital divide risks creating a two-tier education system where a family's income determines whether a child can fully participate in learning. That is completely unacceptable.

The burden does not end there. The most recent cost of education survey shows parents are now paying almost €1,800 each year for a child in primary school and almost €3,000 per year for a child in secondary school. Even more worrying is that the number of parents taking loans to cover these costs has doubled in just one year. That should be a wake-up call for the Government. Instead of easing the pressure, this Government has reintroduced State examination fees, increased school transport charges and reduced a range of cost-of-living supports for schools and for families. Parents continue to subsidise the education system through so-called voluntary contributions because schools remain chronically underfunded. Principals are struggling to cover basic costs such as heating, electricity and insurance and families should not be expected to bridge the gap.

While I welcome the Labour Party bringing forward this motion, we cannot forget that much of the funding crisis in education was compounded by a Labour Party education Minister, Ruairí Quinn, who slashed funding to schools - vital capitation and grants that still have not recovered. It was a Labour Party Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton, who, among other vital supports, cut the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. Funding for schools and school-going children must be protected above practically everything else. They are just that important to the health of our society.

Sinn Féin has consistently put forward practical and costed proposals to reduce the financial burden on families. We would properly fund schools so that voluntary contributions could finally be abolished. We have introduced legislation to reduce school uniform costs by ending restrictive single-supplier arrangements that leave parents paying inflated prices.

We would restore funding for ICT and provide proper support for digital devices, so that no child is disadvantaged because his or her family cannot afford expensive technology. We would expand school transport, reverse the reintroduction of State examination fees, and ensure that supports such as the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance continue to help families meet the real cost of education.

The cost-of-living crisis has not disappeared simply because the Government has stopped talking about it. Families know that every euro counts. They feel the pressure every time they buy groceries, pay a bill, or prepare their children for school. Education is a right, not a privilege. Access to learning should never depend on a parent's ability to take out a loan or put another bill on a credit card.

This motion provides an opportunity for the Government to recognise the reality facing families and, importantly, to act. Sinn Féin will support it because we believe every child deserves the best possible start in life and every parent deserves a Government that stands with them rather than adding to their financial burden.

I thank the Labour Party for this timely and important motion. Sinn Féin supports this motion because the cost of sending children to school has become an unacceptable financial burden on families across the State. While the free book scheme is very welcome, the problem now is that the savings that many families receive are being completely undermined by mandatory ICT costs. In her opening statement, the Minister said schools should use the ICT fund in this case but was this fund not cut by €15 million? You really could not make it up. The Government cuts the fund and then tells schools to use it.

The reality is that a growing digital divide is emerging in our schools, and while the Government celebrates its announcements, parents are being asked to pay more and more simply to ensure their child or children can fully participate in education. So much for free education.

The Zurich cost of education survey shows that the annual cost to parents now is almost €1,800 for a child in primary school, and almost €3,000 for a child in secondary school. That is per child. Even more shocking is the number of parents taking out loans to meet these costs. That number doubled between 2025 and 2026. How on earth can that be described as free education?

At a time when families should be proudly taking photographs of their children on their first day back at school, many parents are instead lying awake at night, wondering how they are going to pay the bills. The Minister said school costs should not stand in the way of education but as she can see here today, they do, and she needs to listen and act on that.

The State needs to step up and properly fund schools. We need an end to the so-called voluntary contributions. We need action to reduce school uniform costs, and we need proper funding for digital services so that all children can access them. We also need the expansion of a genuinely universal hot meals scheme.

The truth is that schools are being so badly underfunded that parents are being forced to subsidise essential education activities. This year alone, at least 47 schools have been referred to the financial support services unit. That is a staggering 38% increase. While Government Members will stand up and list the things they have done, some which are very welcome, they will conveniently ignore the things they have done to make life harder. They have reintroduced State examination fees, increased school transport fees, and cut the school clothing and footwear allowance.

Most importantly, research from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ERSI, and University of Limerick, UL, is now confirming what parents and teachers have been telling us for years, and what the Government has chosen to ignore, namely the digital divide is real, and educational inequality is growing. The Government has been sitting back while schools are left with no choice but to pass the costs on to parents because Ministers have continually failed to properly fund our education system.

Every July and August, families steel themselves for the cost of children going back to school, including uniforms, books, and shoes, and, as the Minister of State well knows, school transport. Now, for thousands of parents, there is another bill waiting on the kitchen table. It is one for hundreds of euro for a digital device. The latest research from the University of Limerick and the ESRI confirms what families and schools have been saying for months now that the Government's hands-off approach to digital education is widening inequality instead of closing it.

I have heard directly from parents across County Waterford who simply cannot absorb another €600, €800 or €1,000 in expenses. When they go to their child’s school, they are often referred to the credit union or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, both of whom, to be fair, are stepping up but that is not the way it should be. I have also spoken to principals who are told to stretch their ICT budgets, and, in fact, that is the response I got from the Minister of State’s colleague, the Minister, Deputy Naughton, when I queried this. Those budgets have been cut. They are threadbare. They are already covering administrative software networks, cyber security, classroom technology, and audiovisual equipment for schools.

The truth is that the Government talks about equal opportunity but too often it delivers unequal access. It celebrates digital education while expecting parents to bankroll it. It tells schools to prepare children for the future but refuses to provide the resources needed to do so. That is not the leadership required here. It is simply passing responsibility on to families and calling it policy. A child's education should never depend on his or her parents' ability to buy a digital device, and no student should be disadvantaged because they cannot afford the device his or her school requires.

If the Government is serious about reducing back-to-school costs and about equality and access, it must properly fund schools' digital infrastructure and stop expecting families to bridge the gap. Níor cheart go mbeadh todhchaí aon pháiste ag brath ar acmhainní airgid a theaghlach. Caithfidh an Rialtas infheistíocht cheart a dhéanamh inár scoileanna agus deireadh a chur leis an ualach atá á cur isteach ar thuismitheoirí.

The idea that education in Ireland is free at any level is a myth, whether it is the so-called voluntary contributions or a student contribution fee that costs more even though the Government claims it is reduced. It is utterly galling for hard-pressed families who shell out hundreds or even thousands of euro a year. That is not to say there have not been positive initiatives - for example, the schoolbook scheme. However, the benefit many parents have seen from that has been wiped away by the increasing numbers of schools mandating the purchase of digital devices.

We have an absolutely ridiculous situation whereby in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis continuing unabated, the Government has decided it is the optimum time to reintroduce costs for junior and leaving certificate examinations.

Most recently, we had a situation whereby the Government's refusal to adequately fund our schools led to cuts being imposed on every Government Department. If the Government wishes to work towards truly free education and to avoid being the cause of stress and financial hardship in the year ahead, there are a few things it should do. It should ban voluntary contributions - Sinn Féin has brought forward the legislation necessary to do this - and adequately fund our schools, including ICT. The Government should ensure the school transport scheme is not the shambles it is every year, and that it is actually free. It should reverse its decision to reintroduce the examination fees. These would be real supports for parents and would finally put an end to giving with one hand while taking back with the other. That could become a hallmark of the Minister of State’s Government.

The summer is meant to be a time that families get some respite, a chance to de-stress and so on but very often, for a lot of families, it is as stressful as any other time of year as they are trying to deal with massive costs. I looked at a receipt a while ago from a mother of three kids, two in primary school and one in secondary, all in DEIS schools. The receipt was for one trip to the uniform shop. It was for a total of €348.50 and she told me that on top of that, the family has bought €70 worth of trousers and shirts, and that is before they get three sets of shoes, stationery for two, and bags for two. The tracksuit, made by a well-known branded company, cost €55, and the family spent €30 on a wool jumper, which incidentally, causes a lot of sensory issues for an awful lot of kids.

We look at these costs which could be cut in half if we were actually enforcing the guidelines. We need some kind of enforcement mechanism. The sew-on or print-on emblems on uniforms would make a huge difference to parents. We need to ensure an enforcement mechanism. Parents, like the women I mentioned, will get the uniform and stationery, have their holiday, if they can afford one, and come back in September and get the letters. These are DEIS schools yet this parent could be looking at fees for the two schools - there are two kids in primary school and one in secondary - of maybe €400. That is even before, in some circumstances, families deal with costs around tablets that could total €500, €600, or €800.

The cost families are facing are absolutely bananas, and real action needs to be taken, especially in terms of uniforms but also digital devices. Voluntary contributions are absolutely Dickensian. We have parents fundraising to keep the lights on. Schools do not get enough money to actually run, and it is not acceptable. We need a lot more action. Education is not free in this country.

I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this motion.

I was chatting to my dad as I was coming in and told him I would be debating this motion in relation to supports for parents this morning. He reminded me, of course, that it was the Labour Party in government that cut those very supports. Then again, those in that party do have all their best ideas in opposition, as we both remarked, and not for the first time I need not tell you.

The Minister indicated that she is very conscious that parents can feel under pressure when some schools seek the use of digital devices for learning. She said that is why she wrote directly to all schools on 25 May and made it very clear that there is no requirement for students to have their own personal devices. She also asked the schools to ensure that no student will be disadvantaged because of his or her circumstances. I do not know why we are having this debate at all if the Minister has written a letter. What precisely happened as a direct result of her writing that letter? I refer to the outworkings of Government policy in the survey Barnardos undertook. One third of parents are getting into debt in order to just pay for the basics. Over 50% of them are very concerned about meeting the back-to-school costs. Some 20% of parents surveyed by Barnardos cut back on food in order to pay their bills. I would say they are very relieved that the Minister wrote a letter. My God - a letter. If her letter does not have any impact - let us be honest; it has not had any impact - the Minister of State might outline what he will do that might go a bit further than writing a letter.

We know that devices are essential. We know that parents want their kids to be able to participate. Let us say that a school has ignored the, I am sure, very strongly worded letter from the Minister. Parents want their kids to be able to participate. For many of them, however, that means getting into debt, going without and, in some instances, cutting back on food. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the Government reintroduced exam fees. The very least it could do is not make matters worse for parents. Parents in this State pay the highest rents in Europe. They pay some of the highest energy costs. They pay the highest childcare costs. There is no sign of those costs being reduced. There are plenty of things outlined in the motion - they have been outlined in great detail by Sinn Féin time and again - that the Government could do to support parents in the here and now.

I welcome the motion. The matter to which it relates is something in respect of which Sinn Féin has been campaigning consistently for many years. There is no doubt that costs are rising and putting families under severe pressure over the summer months. At a time when children and young people are at home and with the good weather, constant demands on parents' budgets are causing massive concern.

We need to see the end of the so-called voluntary contributions. I understand why schools look for them. They are trying to keep the lights on and trying to keep toilet rolls in bathrooms. It is the basic stuff they cannot afford. They cannot afford these things because of the gaps in funding. We need to end restrictive single-supplier arrangements. We have already called for this in our affordable school uniform Bill. It is bizarre that the State does not fund digital devices. What is the point of free school books when people have to find hundreds of euro to pay for devices? In a country that is home to most of the largest IT and social media companies in the world, surely, we must be leading the way in terms of technology in our schools.

What has the Government done in respect of this matter? It has cut €15 million from the ICT grants for schools, which are down to a miserly €35 million. A recent survey puts the cost of education at €1,794 for primary school and €2,928 for the post-primary. Those are shocking costs for parents, particularly in view of the cost-of-living crisis. Of course, the Minister of State will point to the free books scheme. Surely even he can see that has been wiped out by the increasing cost of digital devices. This matter needs to be addressed. A letter from the Minister, however nicely worded, has simply not worked. We are often told that Ireland is a world leader in terms of quality educational systems. What we need is fair and equitable access to the education system for all of our children and young people. We often talk about nobody being left behind. I can tell the Minister of State that there are children all over this State who are being left behind.

At this time of year and with the great weather we are having, families should be planning holidays or spending days at the beach or elsewhere. Instead, for a growing number of families, this is a time of stress. They are already worrying about the cost of their children going back to school in September. On top of spiralling rents, mortgages and food and energy costs, they must also pay for school books, uniforms, school bags and shoes and make the so-called voluntary donation. The list is endless, and the burden for families is getting heavier. Sending children back to school is a significant financial burden, with an average cost of €1,607 in respect of primary school students and over €2,100 for secondary school students. These costs, details of which were provided by the Irish League of Credit Unions and Zurich, are forcing many parents into debt. Added to them are growing digital costs. According to Barnardos, the average cost of digital devices for second level has reached €430. That is up from €221 a couple of years ago. Families are going to be contacting me throughout the summer at my constituency office in Dublin Fingal East, just like they did last year. Parents and guardians are under pressure. They are seeking financial help. Many of them are borrowing money to clear current debts before the back-to-school bills land on their doorsteps.

The Government points to improvements like the free school books scheme, but these gains are wiped out by the cost of living. The Government has reintroduced State examination fees, increased school transport fees, cut the back-to-school clothes and footwear scheme and removed the cost-of-living payments for schools and the double child benefit payment. Many schools still do not provide hot lunches for kids. Tackling these costs requires structural change, sustained public investment in education and schools and an immediate reversal of the cuts to grants and one-off payments and the reintroduction of fees. Our kids are our future; we need to invest in them.

I thank the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion. It is very timely. These are the summer months when parents start to think about how we will we stretch our finances to autumn, get everything that we need to ready and then still maybe take a holiday, organise summer camps, etc. The motion is, as stated, very timely. I thank everyone involved for their work on it.

It has been very interesting to listen to the contributions so far. Everybody recognises that there are challenges in the country in the context of poverty. Ultimately, this motion stems from the fact that hundreds of thousands of children in this country are living in poverty. The Department is trying to implement measures to combat that, but there are differing views in terms of where the support is coming from and how effective it is.

I will go through a few of the things that I think still present challenges. The capitation grant for schools was increased last year but has still not reached a level which will mean that schools are fully funded. It has not reached the level where it needs to be. In addition, it does not take into consideration the level of inflation. As a result, parents are offsetting the costs that the schools do not have the money to meet. Fundraising is happening, particularly in primary schools. I reiterate what I have said on previous occasions, which is that parents are not fundraisers for schools. They send their children to school and that really should be the end of the transaction. If education is truly free in this country, they should not need to fundraise. However, some parents like to fundraise for things that give schools a bit of icing on the cake but not for the bread-and-butter stuff.

There should be no parents' associations, etc., fundraising to pay for the cost of insurance, toilet rolls, which I heard about from a few schools, or anything else that should be covered by the State. There should be no parents coming in to fix a shelf that constantly falls down or a hole in a floorboard because material in a prefab is rotten. That should not happen in our schools. Our schools should be fully functioning, fully kitted out and fully workable. The people who work in schools and the students who attend them should be able to do so in buildings that are modern and fit for purpose. Parents should not be offsetting the costs relating to the upkeep of schools that and schools should not have to wait for an extremely long time to get the buildings they so rightly deserve.

Voluntary contributions should be banned outright. The payment of such contributions should not be allowed by any schools. There is an app that parents often have on their phones. There is a payment section in the app, and there will always be a little notification mark in that section to say that there is a payment outstanding. When people click into the section in question, they find details of the voluntary contribution.

The word is "voluntary" and so that should not be allowed to feature on any app whatsoever. There should never be reminder letters telling parents they have not paid their contribution fee or the kind of passive one stating, "For those parents who haven't paid..." They should just be banned because the State should fully fund the school. We need to get rid of that and the sooner we do that the better.

The issue of hot school meals has been a focus of the education committee for a long time. I introduced my first Bill a number of weeks ago with regard to the nutritional value of hot school meals. That is available because there were children who were hungry coming to school. It was introduced to combat that, to make sure that no child in primary school would be hungry. That needs to be rolled out to all primary schools. It is available to all primary schools but not all of them take it up because of the administrative burden on the principals and not all parents take it up because of the nutritional value. That needs to be rolled out, to be fully functioning and to be nutritious so that every child is able to have a nutritious meal in primary school. I would love to see that rolled out in secondary schools but that is a different day's discussion.

The reintroduction of the examination fee six weeks before it had to be paid was an absolute disgrace. If at the time of the budget in October the Government knew that was going to happen, parents should have been notified that it was going to be reintroduced in the springtime. When parents were told, they had six weeks to pay but most people do not have such a flexible budget to allow them to pay the €160 or however much it is. When things are being reintroduced time needs to be factored in for that.

There was an increase in the cost of school transport for families. I know the Minister said the numbers look very small but for parents with a number of children and on a tight budget any increase will put them in difficulty.

I have mentioned school uniforms several times. Sinn Féin had a motion earlier in the year dealing with school uniforms. I put on the record that I think the uniforms for some children are very challenging. I would probably have a different view as to whether we should impose uniforms on children but again that is for a different day. Circular 0032/2017 has been in existence for almost ten years and in most parts is not enforced. There is no point in issuing a circular if nothing is going to be done about it. I am delighted the Minister has said there will be a working group to review and hopefully strengthen that. I would love if nobody had to spend hundreds of euro on a uniform. There should be iron-on or adhesive logos on a generic uniform that would not cost so much money.

The reason we know things are so difficult for parents is that the Minister for Social Protection has said that he is going to give 126,000 families the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. That equates to 233,000 children in this country who need support for their clothing and shoes to go back to school. I do not see it as a great achievement that we are supporting them. I see it as an absolute disgrace that such a number of people need that support. I welcome that that funding and support is there for those families but I am still shocked that this affects 233,000 children, which is a lot of children, aged between two and 18. I think it goes up to 22 in some cases.

There is a digital divide. The digital divide has been seen from Covid time, in particular. My own project in Ballymun, the anseo school completion programme, provided laptops and broadband. I know people still do not believe me that we provided broadband to families but we did because they did not have broadband at home and that is still the case for families around the country. There is a growing divide even though the Minister is saying that children and young people do not need laptops. However, there is an advantage if their family can buy them one and they can continue their school work at home. It is not good enough to say that schools can make up their minds about that. The Department needs to actually decide and give guidance like it does for other things. The Department needs to say they either do not need it or they need it and if they need it, it needs to provide the support money for that.

My next point continues on from the digital divide. Some children with disabilities do not have access to digital devices to help them with their learning in school. Their schools might only be granted one or they might only be able to have access to one or two assessments. That needs to change. Every child who needs digital support for learning needs to get that as a priority and it needs to be available to them.

While I do not want to eat into too much more of Deputy Hearne's time, I want to wish everybody on the education committee, the Minister, the Minister of State and those who speak on a regular basis about education a very nice summer. It has been a very difficult year for everybody. It is important to recognise that everybody is trying to work hard. We will keep pushing the Minister and the Department from this side of the Chamber but I hope they have a good break.

I thank the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion. It is important to have a discussion about the context of education costs and back-to-school costs. Of course, the context is massive inequality in this country. The gap between the haves and the have nots is worsening year after year while we have 11 billionaires in this country who have a combined wealth equal to that of 3.5 million people or two thirds of the population. The top 10% in this country have 50% of all the wealth while half the population own just 10% of the wealth. We see the reality of that on a daily basis. In Ballymun, Finglas and across this country families are struggling to pay for the very basics and one of those is back-to-school costs, the cost of education.

Education should be free. It is a human right. However, what it is actually doing is throwing families into even more stress on top of not being able to pay the basic bills. In my constituency to respond and support families struggling with back-to-school costs, the Finglas voluntary food and family support service, Feed Our Homeless, last year organised help for families with a pop-up shop for school uniforms and shoes. This year families are struggling so much they are reporting they are already dealing with being cut off from electricity and gas. Families and services are asking for support again. Families are finding it extremely challenging. One in five children in this country lives in a family below the poverty line after housing costs. Children and families cannot cover the basics. A second tier of child benefit would lift 55,000 children out of poverty but the Government will not do it. It costs the same as what it has given in tax breaks to developers, investor funds and large fast-food giants.

Childhoods pass quickly. No child should have their future limited by poverty. Every child deserves a fair start in life and a chance to thrive. Child poverty is not inevitable. It is a policy choice. It results from decades of policy choices that have not prioritised child poverty. We need to end child poverty in this country and we can. Part of it is ensuring education is free and school costs are provided for. Ultimately, it is about ensuring families can cover the basics.

A couple of months ago, I was contacted by a grandfather whose granddaughter was told she needed to have an iPad in school and needed to pay €500 for an iPad. It is an absolutely crazy situation where we have free education in this country and yet many schools impose this massive burden on families, many of whom simply cannot afford it. I accept the Minister has written to schools saying they cannot make these compulsory but it is not wiping this practice out across the board. The costs are absolutely staggering and are rising each year.

We need to have some analysis on whether it is good for children to be using iPads, laptops and so on. The Department of education has gone all-in on so-called ed tech without much real scrutiny of whether it is beneficial. That is what is driving schools to tell parents that the kids have to have an iPad, tablet or Chromebook. We need independent analysis of whether and when technology is beneficial in the classroom instead of just dancing to the tune of big tech as we do in so many other areas is of policy.

Obviously if the Department is going to insist on ed tech being used, it needs to fully fund it. Instead, it has cut the grant scheme for ICT infrastructure for schools by 30%. It provides no funding for repair and maintenance of digital devices. We have a bit of a cruel joke whereby schoolbooks are being made free, which is great, but on the other hand we are using them less and instead parents are being forced to pay more and more for technology.

The one issue I have with the motion is the idea that there should be a loan scheme for parents to buy laptops or iPads for their children. We are supposed to have free primary and secondary education in this country. I know we are a long way off from it in reality but we should not be legitimising the idea that parents should be forced into debt to fund their children's education. Instead, we should be demanding that the Government fully fund the cost of education for every child in this country.

I will cut to the chase here. The reason for the digital divide is that the Department of education has introduced a syllabus, particularly in senior cycle in secondary school, which has such a high level of assessment, 40% in many cases, that school principals have decided that students need laptops. It is because of the new syllabus the Department has introduced.

There was a very good article by the RTÉ education correspondent on this in January.

What is happening in schools is that Wriggle and other companies are wooing principals and trying to wine and dine them in order to get contracts. Overnight stays in the K Club and five-star retreats are being offered to principals. I am not saying that principals are going along with this or are doing anything wrong, I am just outlining the facts for the Minister of State.

This should be done by means of public procurement. I absolutely agree with the previous speaker. We need to have an audit to establish whether it is good for children to be on screens. There is loads of scientific evidence that it is not good. Certainly, older children and teenagers need laptops or access to computers in order do assessments and assignments and to have a fair chance, which they do not have, in this education system. The Minister of State needs to make this a public procurement issue as opposed to leaving it up to individual schools. If students need equipment, it should be provided. During the pandemic, I returned to teaching at a school in west Tallaght. At that time, students were on their phones trying to cope because the Department of Education did not provide them with equipment to allow them to engage with remote learning. The addiction that many teenagers developed in respect of their phones during the pandemic is the Department's fault. I do not have time to go into all of the other costs that are being imposed on parents. In the context of the issue to which I refer, however, the Department needs to invest.

I thank Deputy Kenny for bringing forward this really important motion, which addresses many of the concerns parents in my constituency are raising with me regarding the increasing back-to-school costs they face each year. I want to hone in on one of the biggest issues with school costs, which is the cost of increasingly mandatory ICT equipment for students. Something I was really pleased to see during the term of office of the previous Government was the roll-out of free schoolbooks. That made a big difference for a lot of families. However, the increasing frequency with which laptops and tablets are being made mandatory for students is seriously undermining that progress. In many cases, the cost of ICT equipment is ending up being greater than the cost of schoolbooks ever was. One parent was in touch with me recently to outline how more than half of her back-to-school costs for this year relate to a mandatory laptop that is going to cost over €700. Parents have been told by the school in question that these laptops will only be used for five years, which will necessitate another expensive purchase for leaving certificate year. Aside from the cost factor, there is the clear issue of creating additional waste through ICT equipment that cannot be passed on to new students.

There is an expanding frontier of cost increases that the Government has not really got to grips with. The Minister for education needs to give clear and firm guidance around what is and is not acceptable in terms of placing ICT cost demands on parents. There also needs to be serious investment in the grant scheme relating to ICT infrastructure, with a view to ultimately making these devices free for families. This is only one issue we need to address in terms of child poverty and school costs. There are many more. We need additional child benefit, we need to increase the back-to-school allowance to deal with rising uniform costs and we need to boost funding for the school meals scheme in order to maximise quality and nutrition as well.

I thank Deputy Kenny for bringing forward this motion. As a parent, I have seen the costs relating to sending children to school skyrocket over the past ten years. The situation is absolutely out of control. The recent back-to-school survey carried out by the Irish League Of Credit Unions shows that 59% of parents find covering back-to-school costs a major financial burden, with more than one in four getting into debt. I would say that number is rising now in view of the cost-of-living crisis. Technology is emerging as a pressure point, but uniforms remain the main pressure point. Some 15% of parents have had to avail of second-hand uniforms, while 43% of the lower cost options such as supermarket alternatives are not available due to the fact that more schools are introducing expensive branded items such as bags, coats and PE gear. Uniforms are supposed to represent equality, but they have become another financial burden on families who are already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis that has been going on for a very long time.

Families are being squeezed from every angle, but particularly in Donegal where families, already living with a burden of defective concrete, are being forced to face additional hidden costs as a result of situations they had no part in causing. I refer, for example, to additional travel costs in circumstances where families are often forced to leave their crumbling homes and move to completely different areas while their children have to travel back to their own communities to attend school. Commuting costs are adding to the burden people must bear and to the pressure on family life, particularly in Donegal. Those who were previously on particular school bus routes no longer have the option of using those routes. As a result, parents are forced to engage in long commutes and to cover the costs incurred in this regard.

I welcome the motion. However, in the context of the funding model for schools, including DEIS schools, I see examples of instances where schools are struggling. We need to improve this down the line. Families are struggling and their needs are not being met.

I welcome this comprehensive set of proposals from Deputy Kenny. We are at the time of year again when parents, particularly those in the low- and middle-income brackets, face the annual challenge of covering back-to-school costs. Families are facing a stack of fees and expenses in respect of uniforms, increased school transport costs, school stationery, so-called voluntary contributions, and laptops and IT equipment. In addition, State exam fees are back. Surveys show that the total cost per school year can accumulate to €1,700 for primary school children and up to €2,900 for secondary school children. For families with a number of school-going children, this can be a major headache.

While I acknowledge that the free schoolbooks scheme and the book-rental scheme result in savings and are a help, those savings are wiped out by the cost of having to buy IT equipment. Such equipment is now mandated in schools and can cost up to €500 or more. Then there are all the other costs that the National Parents Council has consistently highlighted. These are the hidden costs such as transition year contributions, payments for school trips, etc. In the struggle to meet these costs, many households turn to moneylenders because there is nowhere else to go. In some cases, they pay penal amounts to illegal moneylenders who charge rates of interest in excess of 50%.

In light of the cost-of-living crisis, there is an onus on us to do all we can to help the low- and middle-income households. We have a reasonably good education system, but we must deal with the issue of costs. In the context of the proposals in the motion regarding the introduction of enforceable guidelines for schools and the fact that some schools have a mandatory requirement in respect of laptops and IT equipment, it is important that these be mandated as opposed to just the subject of a letter that was sent out. We also need to restore the school grant up to an amount of €50 million in order to cover the cost of ICT infrastructure. We need to restore the €100 that was cut from the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and issue a ministerial order to schools in relation to generic uniforms. It is a terrible situation. I remember hearing a conversation between my mother and an aunt years ago regarding the benefit of school uniforms. They said that every child would look the same and there would be no competition for fashion, particularly in girls' schools. However, what has happened is-----

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta.

-----that we have stood that on its head. It is important that we increase the capitation grant for schools as well.

Anois, bogfaimid go dtí an chéad sliotán eile agus an Teachta Michael Collins.

Every parent knows that September has become one of the most expensive months of the year. While free schoolbooks are welcome, many families now face growing costs for other items. Parents are being asked to purchase laptops that cost €400 or more, make increased payments for school transport and pay charges to cover examination fees. For hardworking families with two, three or four children travelling long distances to school, these costs add up very quickly. At the same time, schools are struggling because the capitation funding no longer covers basic day-to-day expenses. Education must be properly funded by Government. It cannot be left to parents and fundraising committees. The State must not create a two-tier system whereby only wealthier families can afford to fully cover their children's education.

Another huge problem which normally arises in August is that relating to school buses. Parents have no way to get their children to school because of the nearest school rule. The current and previous programmes for Government contain promises that this will be done away with, but nothing has happened. The rule needs to be abolished. That has been promised over many years, but here we are again this year. Parents are on the phone begging me for tickets for school buses. One lady was on to me the other morning to say that her son is going into fifth class. He had a ticket for the past four years and now he does not have a ticket this year. The neighbours are the same situation. That is not good enough. We cannot just grab a ticket from a child who had a ticket before and then find some kind of an excuse as to why that happens. Education should not be measured by means of the distance someone lives from school, and school transport should not be measured on that basis either.

I want to raise a matter that Councillor Bill Clear brought to my attention. It is a very serious issue regarding St. Corban’s National School in Naas in County Kildare.

It stepped up when the Department came calling, faced with a shortage of junior infants places. That left up to 30 children with nowhere to go. The school agreed to open a third junior infants class and take in an extra 25 pupils at the Department's request. Now, after doing the right thing, the school is being told it will not be given the additional teacher needed to staff that class. That leaves two unacceptable choices. Either 25 children are left without a school place this September, or two senior infants classes are merged into one class of 34 children. Does the Minister of State agree that schools should not be punished for helping to solve an enrolment crisis? Will he immediately sanction the additional teaching posts required for St. Corban's before the new school year. I would appreciate if the Minister of State addressed that here. Councillor Bill Clear has raised it as a huge issue. He has been to the school and met the parents. This is a crisis that has popped up in a new school in Bandon, too. It seems to be a crisis that is popping up here and there.

Schools that are doing their best are still being punished. Sometimes, there needs to be a bit of movement because, for example, there could be a teacher short. I was chairperson of a board of management and know the difficulties that schools face just because they are one or two children short. That can be made up as the year goes on but it is a crisis that Councillor Clear finds unacceptable. Schools stepped up to the mark when the Minister asked them to and now they are being punished for doing so.

While I am on the floor, I congratulate Councillors Bill Clear and Ger Dunne from our own Independent Ireland team on becoming mayor and deputy mayor of Naas, respectively.

Like many of the stories the Minister of State has heard today in the House, it is not strange that we have constituents coming to us regularly saying the biggest fear they have is the postman's knock. When they get the criteria for what is needed for their children to start the school year, those include €700 laptops, €600 iPads, tablets or something of that format as well as signing up to a Microsoft programme that has been selected. Despite your household perhaps owning a Microsoft programme, you have to buy into another one. I highlighted this in the House over 12 months ago on Leaders' Questions. I am still waiting for a proper reply from the Taoiseach. We have heard the ministerial circular that went around saying that people do not have to use laptops. Every one of us knows from our own constituencies that laptops, iPads and tablets are being used regularly by order of boards of management.

I have to acknowledge the Government's good work and call it out, including the free books scheme and the school meals. However, the Government has made a hames of the school meals. Deputy Collins has produced photographs in the House of food that you would not give to a farm animal, yet it is being produced for children. That is the standard that the Government has come up with. That has to be addressed.

When it comes to education, Deputy Moynihan is a Fianna Fáil Minister of State. I remember the great days of Donogh O'Malley. I would what Donogh O'Malley would think if he saw the education shambles that the Government presided over in this country over the last 20 years. The Government has not addressed school uniform problems or the fact that most parents have to pay €300 for a PE kit. It has not addressed the problem that parents have to give this voluntary contribution, which is really not voluntary when schools are putting out news bulletins listing the names of families who have contributed and those who have not contributed. That is happening regularly. Parents are suffering, wondering how they will get the money for a school tour and how they will get the money to send their young ones up to the Dáil to tour the House. We have dozens or hundreds of schools that visit this House and many parents in my constituency in Cork have told me that they could not let their young ones go simply because they did not have enough to pay for their lunch or the bus. That is in the wealthiest country in Europe. We should all be inside here hanging our heads in shame about how we are treating people.

Just go outside the gate and the Minister of State will see Cara Darmody outside Leinster House again, highlighting a law that the Government has been breaking for over 20 years. What was the Taoiseach's answer to me yesterday? He said we might have to look at and change the legislation. He does not want to be the lawbreaker. He is happy to have broken the law for the last 20 years and presided over that, but now he has decided that instead of fixing the problem, he will change the law so that he is not culpable. It is unbelievable to even be allowed to give that answer to the representatives in this House.

The Government has failed the country again. It has failed the 22,000 children in terms of assessments of need, it has failed the school meals programme, which is badly thought out, and it is failing again. I commend the Labour Party and the motion to this House.

We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Groceries are up by 40% and diesel is up by 60% over the past five years, yet another bill is landing every August for families who send their children to school. That bill is an ICT bill. It is a bill for a laptop. Incredibly, the Government introduced free books last year but has this year introduced what is effectively mandatory ICT at a cost that is significantly higher than the books ever were. Many families have contacted me and outlined bills of €1,000 for a laptop. The same families came into my office and showed me second-hand laptops that they already owned but that the school principals and authorities said could not be used, meaning the families had to purchase brand new laptops from one specific supplier.

The Government created this problem and has passed the buck to the principals. The principals are now trying to deliver a curriculum that was never designed in schools because the Department and officials did a solo run to radically change the curriculum. At both junior cycle and senior cycle, the Government introduced a massive amount of continuous assessment without any provision for how that continuous assessment would be delivered, and now principals are scratching their heads, wondering how they deliver all of this continuous assessment in an age where many children do not have personal laptops. They sent out letters to families with €1,000 or €1,500 bills for laptops.

I wrote to the Minister and asked if she could make a statement on this, and the Minister said that no child should be required to purchase a laptop, yet the bills and letters are still landing because the principals do not know what else to do. It is very clear to me that the Government has essentially created a problem as a result of lack of consultation, and now the people paying the costs are the hard-pressed families who are struggling with the cost of living. It is a very similar situation to the school uniform, where we had single suppliers for crested uniforms. These suppliers were often charging double what other suppliers were. We have created the very same problem and the Government has learned nothing. It needs to intervene here. I am dealing with families who are afraid to speak up and raise the fact that they do not have the money to afford this, and that their children may be adversely affected by not being on the school team and so on. It is perhaps irrational but this is happening on the ground.

The other question that the House has not addressed is whether it is good for children to be on laptops from 9 o'clock to 4 o'clock during the school day and then to go home and be consumed with social media. The Government has created this with a solo run with the change of curriculum, and now it is up to the Government to address it.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an bPáirtí an Lucht Oibre. This highlights what many families are experiencing right now. Many people have been in contact with me. Even today, I met parents who were under enormous pressure because of the cost of uniforms, books, transport and school activities. Many families are being told that they must now spend hundreds of euro on a Chromebook, laptop or other digital asset, and it is still not something that they can afford. Over recent weeks, one parent told me that their school insisted that these were essential learning tools for every student because of the new leaving certificate curriculum, yet parliamentary questions that I submitted confirmed that there is no departmental requirement for students to have a personal digital device at either junior or leaving certificate level. That contradiction leaves parents and students whom I represent caught in a middle ground. On one hand, the Department is saying they are not mandatory and, on the other, schools are telling parents that they must purchase one.

I understand that the Minister of State was in north Dublin. I thank him for coming out to those schools, but parents need to be fully consulted about any decision and schools should avoid unnecessary costs where possible. Those are sensible principles. They are not always being reflected in practice.

Parents are also raising legitimate concerns with me and the Department about where schools require students to purchase devices through a single supplier.

They deserve to know how that supplier was selected, whether public procurement guidance has been followed and why students cannot use an equivalent device that they may already own.

Technology undoubtedly has an important role in education. I do not dispute that fact. I came through education while the technology was developing. However, access to education or a curriculum should never depend on a family's ability to spend several hundreds of euro on a particular device. If the Department's position is that personal devices are not mandatory, then policy should be applied consistently across Ireland, as parents deserve clarity and no young people should feel excluded from education because of the cost of a laptop.

I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I acknowledge the massive improvements that have been made. The national broadband plan is almost complete. Massive inroads have been made in my home county of Meath, including in the roll-out and the access it provides. That is most welcome, particularly in the area of assistive technologies for young people and older people with intellectual disabilities. It is the connectivity piece. The cost, however, is paramount.

One part of me is slightly incredulous that we are having the discussing in 2026 because my experience goes back to 2018, 2019 and 2020 in Ratoath, County Meath. A Ratoath report was carried out by Ms Cora Dunne and Dr. Ann Marcus-Quinn. It made a significant contribution to discussions around the introduction of mandatory digital devices in post-primary education. It highlighted parental concerns regarding the cost and compulsory purchase. The roll-out was halted in 2020 with the Covid-19 pandemic and remote learning and having one's own device become an essential. Other than that, the long-term implications of mandated devices was largely paused rather than fully developed.

In 2024, there was another report. Then, there was an OECD report in 2025, which highlighted that Ireland could benefit from a more structured and equity-driven digital education system. The models in France and Estonia provide stronger mechanisms for ensuring universal and consistent access, but they focus on the cost.

Most recently, there was the July 2026 ESRI report, working paper No. 836. I apologise if I am repeating what other Members have gone through. The information is there. The plan and suggestions are effectively worked out for us. What we need now is to expand on the policy. The key finding in all three reports, which span the last seven years if we take into account 2019 when we began that exercise in Ratoath College, is that we risk reproducing and intensifying existing educational inequalities. Family income is the primary determinant, followed by school resources and institutional capacity. Even within that, there is variation between school sectors and governance structures.

In terms of taking the learnings and recommendations from France, Estonia, Malta and Austria, there is a roadmap. Like it or not, it may mean pulling back from the commercial one-to-one contract between the family and the provider and centralising it. That will encompass centralised State procurement, standardised device specifications and collective purchasing arrangements, having guidelines, and having additional targeted financial supports for schools serving socio-economically disadvantaged communities. Other factor can be looked at such as VAT relief, hardware refurbishment schemes and buyback programmes. That is the approach Austria and Malta take. We are rapidly moving to the point where we have to have a centrally led approach to this subject.

I, too, am glad to be able to speak on this motion today. I compliment Páirtí an Lucht Oibre for introducing it. While we often the cost of education in terms of books, uniforms and transport, the reality for many families is that the financial pressures associated with rearing children have never been greater. I acknowledge that the schoolbooks scheme has been a positive development. It has delivered genuine savings and a significant burden has been removed from parents in many households. That support has made a real difference and it is important that we recognise it. However, parents are telling us that the savings are increasingly being swallowed up by a wide range of other costs. The loss of the double child benefit payment and other cost-of-living supports has come at a time when families are facing rising bills across every aspect of daily life. Parents are not just paying for education. They are paying more for food, energy, insurance, childcare and gach rud eile.

One issue that deserves particular attention is the cost of extracurricular activities. Too often, participation in these activities depends not on a child's talent or interest, but on the ability of the parents to pay. This is creating an uneven divide and it has denied opportunities to many children. It is downright wrong. It should not be like that. If parents have enthusiasm for music or something like that, whatever talent the child has, they should be nurtured. "Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí" used to be the old adage. Music education is a perfect example. Some schools provide excellent music programmes and opportunities for students to learn instruments and participate in assemblies. Other schools offer very little. Where lessons are available privately, parents can be paying up to €25 a lesson and more before the cost of purchasing and maintaining the instruments. For many families, this is simply beyond their reach. These experiences are highly important to a child's development, confidence, which has never been more important, and well-being, yet too many families are being priced out.

We must recognise the growing cost associated with uniforms. Despite the guidance promoting affordable uniforms, many parents are still required to purchase expensive crested and branded items. Parents also face substantial bills simply because they are required to buy specific items from a specific supplier. That is not fair and is not a balanced market either. There is no good reason that generic uniforms or PE clothing cannot be used in most cases. Parents should have the freedom to shop around and buy affordable items themselves. Competition is the spice of trade. It keeps the price down.

Alongside these pressures, parents are increasingly faced with the expectation that they provide laptops and other digital devices for their children. While technology is important, why should parents be carrying that cost? Families have benefited from the schoolbooks scheme. We should be creative and try to assist families in purchasing this expensive and necessary equipment. The point has been made earlier that they are on their laptops all day in school and then they go home and are on social media all night. It is not good for the holistic development of the children and young adults.

I thank the Labour Party for tabling this motion. The motion before us reflects a concern that many families will recognise, namely, that the costs associated with going back to school can place real pressure on household budgets. Both the Minister, Deputy Naughton, and l, and the wider Government, recognise that concern. Our focus is on practical measures that reduce costs, support schools and ensure every child can participate fully in school life.

The issues raised today are important. I thank all Deputies who raised the issues across the Chamber. They reflect the real and often significant financial pressures that many families face at the start of the school year. Those pressures are felt in very practical ways: through the cost of uniforms, transport, classroom materials and, increasingly in some cases, digital devices. The Government recognises those pressures. More importantly, we are acting to reduce them. Our aim is simple: school costs should never stand in the way of a child taking part fully in school life.

A particular focus of today's debate has been the issue of digital devices in schools. Deputies have raised legitimate concerns about the costs that can arise for families where schools use digital technologies as part of teaching and learning. The Government recognises these concerns. Digital technologies can support high-quality teaching, learning and assessment. They can open new opportunities for students, support learning and help young people develop the skills they need in an increasingly digital world but technology must support inclusion and must not become a new source of inequality. That is why the Minister, Deputy Naughton, wrote directly to all schools on 25 May following concerns raised by parents about the growing costs associated with digital devices. The Minister made it very clear that there is no requirement for a student to have their own personal device for school. This is an important point, and one that bears repeating. There is no national requirement that students must own or purchase a digital device in order to attend school or participate in learning. Where schools are considering the use of digital devices, they are expected to take full account of the financial impact on families and to ensure that no student is disadvantaged because of their circumstances. The guidance issued by the Department asks schools to place affordability, equity and value for money at the centre of their decision-making. Before introducing any expectation that families purchase devices, schools are encouraged to consider whether students' needs can be met through school shared devices. Importantly, schools can use ICT grant funding to purchase and manage such devices.

The guidance also asks schools to consult with parents and students before introducing or reviewing digital device arrangements. It encourages schools to take account of the overall cost of education for families: to provide clear information on device requirements; to avoid exclusive purchasing arrangements; and to consider options such as second-hand, refurbished or reused devices where these can reduce costs. This is the right balance. It respects the role of schools and boards of management in making decisions at local level while making clear that those decisions must be informed by engagement with parents and students and by a clear commitment to affordability and inclusion.

While digital devices have been a strong focus of the debate, the Government also recognises that school costs go much wider. Families can face a range of costs at the start of the school year and those costs can arrive all at once. That is why the Government has taken action across a number of areas. The free books scheme, which was introduced, is a great example. It is one of the most significant measures ever introduced to reduce the cost of education for families. Since September 2025, almost 1 million children and young people have benefited from free books and core classroom resources. That represents an investment of €160 million and the full delivery of the programme for Government commitment to provide free schoolbooks for every child.

The Government has also increased capitation funding to schools, as the Minister outlined earlier. In budget 2026, €39 million was secured to increase capitation funding, giving schools greater flexibility to meet running costs and reduce reliance on parental contributions.

Over the past three budgets, there has been a substantial uplift in capitation funding at both primary and post-primary levels. The Government is also maintaining investment in school transport. The school transport scheme has expanded significantly in recent years, with the number of children and young people using the service increasing from just under 120,000 in 2018 to over 180,000 in 2025. There has been an increase of over 145% in investment in the scheme from 2019 to 2025. The scheme expenditure was €219 million in 2019, rising to €537 million in the last school year.

The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance continues to provide important support to families. As of this month, payments totalling €47.8 million issued to over 123,000 families for over 229,000 children. The rate of payment per child is €160 for children aged between two and 11 and €285 for children aged 12 years and over. These are practical supports that make a real difference for families.

This has been a valuable debate and I thank all Deputies for the sincerity of the debate and for bringing forward the motion. The concerns raised are real. They reflect the pressures that some families can face at the start of the school year. We are implementing practical measures that make real-world differences to families. We are supporting families through free books, increased capitation funding, investment in school transport, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance, and the expansion of the hot school meals programme. We are also strengthening guidance on school uniforms and strengthening the voice of parents and students through the Student and Parent Charter Bill.

The Department has issued guidance asking schools to prioritise affordability, equity, consultation and value for money. The Government will continue to work with schools, patrons, students and across the education partners to reduce costs, support inclusion and ensure every child can participate fully and confidently in education.

I welcome to the Gallery former councillor Peter Coyle, a great servant to the Labour Party and Fingal local government for 20 years.

I thank Deputy Kenny for bringing forward this motion on behalf of the Labour Party and the majority of Deputies for their contributions to this debate today. I have to qualify that thanks as a couple of the Sinn Féin contributors chose to take a narrow, decontextualised view of Labour’s own record in education. To focus that lens on Sinn Féin, which held the education brief in Northern Ireland for 16 years, it was a time of multi-annual budget cuts, multiple fee and state exam increases and, indeed, redundancies of teachers and support staff. The charge made against us was that we have our best ideas in opposition. Maybe the charge against Sinn Féin is that it has its best ideas in the South because its record in the North in education is nothing short of disastrous.

What about the Tories?

You have had your moment.

We have put this motion down in July 2026, at a time of relative plenty. While over the past number of years things have been brought in to attempt to relieve the burden on parents and families in relation to school costs, this Government has continued, almost by stealth, to squeeze families in relation to the cost of education. State examination fees continue to go up. School transport fees continue to go up under this Government. The cost of ancillary services, energy, insurance and waste services, which all impact on school and education, continue to go up while the supports that parents rely on, like the double child benefit payment or energy credits, are gone. These are all under this Government. Again, it is a squeeze - a stealth tightening - on parents and families in relation to education. If the Government was really serious about education, it would do something to enforce the 2017 circular on affordable uniforms rather than just talk and hope that schools bring it in.

The study published this month by the Irish League of Credit Unions, ILCU, found that 59% of parents said covering back-to-school costs is a financial burden and more than one in four is going into debt. That should be the wake-up call that this Government needs that whatever measures it believes it is taking are nowhere near good enough and that parents and families are struggling. We say we have a free education system when, in fact, we do not. There are huge inequalities. There are haves and have-nots and if you are a have-not in this country, you feel it in many different ways and one way you feel it is in access to and the ability to enjoy education. This Government is not doing enough and this motion sets out ways that it can do more.

I want to thank my colleague, Deputy Kenny, for bringing forward this really important motion and welcome the support across the Opposition. He does appear to be getting to some Deputies in Sinn Féin.

No one wants to be talking about going back to school but the back-to-education allowance has landed this week and many parents are having to deal with an existing cost-of-living crisis. It beggars belief that after years of budgetary surpluses the at-risk of poverty rate and the deprivation rate continue to go in the wrong direction. It is shameful that with all the money being dished out, we are seeing a rise in the at-risk of deprivation rate among one-parent families. Almost half of all one-parent families are still experiencing deprivation and there is a rise in the at-risk of poverty rate for two-parent families, with one in eight of those families experiencing deprivation. The back-to-education costs are a very big part of the story of child poverty and deprivation in this country and the ILCU survey very powerfully spoke to that this week.

Talking about back to school feels like Groundhog Day with regard to school uniforms.

As my colleague Deputy Smith said, there is a Department circular that the Department has failed to enforce across schools. It is extraordinary to listen to the Minister of State talk about guidance from the Department to schools saying that no family or pupil should be forced to purchase a device. The reality, as we know, is that 30% of schools have mandated their pupils to get devices. Some 17% of those schools are DEIS schools. We know that some tech companies, a huge number of which have their EMEA headquarters here in Ireland, are supporting schools, including some schools in my constituency, but that is not good enough. We need the State to step in. It is frankly appalling that the ICT grant was cut last year and has remained the same this year and that there is no provision for maintenance and repair.

Our key message to the Minister is that there needs to be a proper State policy with regard to ICT use in our schools, there needs to be proper supports to families to access the devices, and we need to end the digital divide and the very blatant inequality emerging to a much greater extent because of access to ICT devices in our schools.

To finish the debate, I thank all Deputies across the House for their contributions. I am quite surprised by the contributions from some Deputies in Sinn Féin, which holds the finance Ministry in the North of Ireland, where there is currently a €700 million shortfall in the Department of Education.

Do not interrupt, please.

Sinn Féin Deputies come in here and have a go at the Labour Party for something that happened 15 years ago, when I was in primary school and 11 years old.

Through the Chair, please.

It is quite interesting. I am not sure where their priorities lie in providing solutions.

Stand for election in the North and see how you get on.

Allow the contribution, Deputy.

The priorities lie in this motion. Instead they come in here and have a go off the Labour Party - no problem at all.

We are only telling you the truth, Eoghan.

No, not at all.

Deputy Bennett, you are out of order. I ask Deputies to stop interrupting. Allow the closing speech.

Sinn Féin should get back to the priorities in this motion.

The Minister in her speech referred on a number of occasions to encouraging schools:

I encourage schools to consider how existing ICT supports and funding could be used to meet students' needs before any expectation was placed on parents ...

Using the words "encourage schools" is extremely blasé in that it does not pay for digital devices. Saying to schools "I encourage you to look into not using digital devices" does not pay for those digital devices that are required.

The Minister referred to a digital learning plan. In our motion we have called for a ring-fenced maintenance fund to be provided by the Department of education for schools. Having been a teacher in two schools, I recognise that these tablets and these laptops that are provided to schools break and that maintenance for them is coming out of capitation grants that cannot be fulfilled by the schools because they are using capitation grants elsewhere. If we had a ring-fenced maintenance fund for these laptops and tablets, it would provide the necessary funding to be able to maintain them. As regards the Minister's reply, guidance to schools is not enforcement to schools. As regards providing guidance and letters to schools that say, "My Department believes that it is not necessary to have laptops and tablets; I am issuing guidance on this", without those enforcement mechanisms being put in place, schools can still mandate children to have a personal digital device, which is what they are doing.

In relation to the Minister's comment that "decisions about digital devices should be grounded in pedagogy, informed by engagement with parents and students and mindful of affordability for families", her own Department has created a senior cycle reform, leaving certificate reform, and almost 40% of that leaving cert work is project work now that almost includes the use of a digital device consistently.

The Minister said when speaking about school uniforms that Circular 32/2017 makes it clear that schools should take practical steps to reduce costs for families, including use of generic items where possible, avoiding unnecessary exclusive supplier arrangements. It is just not happening. That circular needs to be revisited and schools need to be issued with further guidance. It is a guidance letter once again, a guidance circular that was produced by the Minister at the time in 2017 that gave absolutely no consequences to the school for having branded school uniforms.

In my opening speech I, as well as my colleagues, welcomed the free books scheme. It was an essential piece that was brought in within the Department of Social Protection and the Department of education that genuinely helped families. However, that free books scheme is now being undermined 100%, unfortunately, by a lot of schools mandating children to have digital devices. That free books scheme was extremely welcome. I welcomed it as a teacher; I welcome it now as a politician. Unfortunately, it is now being undermined by many schools across the country mandating children to have digital devices.

The Minister outlined the cost of school transport. School transport should be free. I do not care if it is €1.32 for families right across the country. It should be free. We should have free school transport in this country for every single child. No financial barrier should be put before a child who needs access to schools, predominantly children living in rural areas.

In relation to the engagement and consultation charter Bill, of course consultation with parents is essential, but drawn-out consultation right now will not pay for the significant back-to-school costs that parents are sitting around the kitchen table right now wondering how they will be able to afford in the next month or two.

Before we move on, I ask for all your co-operation with the direction of the Chair to get through the amount of business we have. I welcome all the Members in the Gallery.

"We are not going to regain any of the abilities we've lost, but Skyclarys will give us time. Time when you're dealing with our progressive relentless disease is everything. We all deserve time with our loved ones." Those are the words of Emily Felix, a 28-year-old trainee solicitor from Kilkenny who is living with Friedreich's ataxia. It is a rare, progressive and life-limiting neurological condition. It gradually takes away mobility, speech and independence. Emily was diagnosed at 12. Since then, she has completed her degree, pursued postgraduate study and begun training as a solicitor. She is doing everything she can to protect her health and her future, but the disease continues to progress.

Yesterday, as the Taoiseach knows, the HSE drugs group met to consider reimbursement of Skyclarys, the first approved treatment that can slow the progression of Friedreich's ataxia. Patients hoped for a positive decision. This process has been ongoing for years. Instead, the drug was referred to a rare disease technical review group for further consideration. This group is not a standing body and must now be convened. This could mean further delays and potentially months before a final decision is made.

For patients, that delay is unbearable. It can mean losing the ability to walk, to speak clearly, to swallow safely or to live independently. Skyclarys is not a cure but it offers something precious: more time with mobility, working, communicating and living independently. Dr. Richard Walsh, consultant neurologist and co-director of the National Ataxia Clinic, has described this drug as a ground-breaking development. He has said that he would prescribe it if it were available in Ireland and that it may reduce the rate of disease progression. Skyclarys has been approved across the European Union since February 2024. It is already publicly funded or accessible in several European countries. Irish patients are watching people with the same condition receive treatment elsewhere while they continue to deteriorate without it. That is cruel.

Yesterday, those living with Friedreich's ataxia gathered at Leinster House waiting for good news. Their hopes were high, but advocates and campaigners were left waiting with no communication. They were left desperately making phone calls, checking for updates, asking journalists and asking politicians if they had heard anything. They were treated appallingly. Then, when the news did eventually filter though, they were left devastated.

Craig Coady from Cork, who has already lost his 13-year-old son, Rory, to Friedreich's ataxia, now watches as his older son, Paudie, deteriorates from the same condition. He took to social media to express his anger. He said:

This is the worst news for my son. The government is kicking the can down the road. We don't have that time because Paudie is getting worse every day. I am so upset and disgusted.

Medicines must be properly assessed, and I get that, but the patient cannot be lost in the process, and that is what happens. In fact, in the programme for Government the Government committed to reviewing that process because it was accepted it does not always work.

The technical review group obviously now needs to be convened and needs to meet urgently.

Emily cannot afford more delays. She is a young woman with a career, ambitions, a family and a future she is fighting to protect. The same is true of every single person living with Friedreich's ataxia in this State. They cannot be left waiting any longer and they deserve better.

Does the Taoiseach accept that those living with Friedreich's ataxia were treated appallingly yesterday, that they deserved to be treated with respect and should have been properly communicated with? Does he recognise that this is a matter of urgency for them and that they cannot continue to wait while time is running out?

As this is my last Leaders' Questions of this term, I thank the Ceann Comhairle and all Deputies in the House for their co-operation throughout the year. I thank the entire team that works here, the ushers, the staff in catering and so on, for the manner in which they look after all of us on an ongoing basis. We deeply appreciate that. To the Deputies, while we disagree on many issues, this is parliamentary democracy in action and long may it continue. I just wanted to say that.

I thank Deputy Cullinane for raising this issue. I accept this is a matter of urgency for those with the condition of Friedreich's ataxia. I have met with Craig Coady and with others who have the condition. It is extremely worrying for them to say the least. The experiences they and their families are going through while awaiting the assessment of this drug are extremely traumatic. I appreciate the Deputy saying there has to be a process or a scientific input into whether medicines are effective or not, or suitable for reimbursement. It took a length of time. I think the company was slow over the past two years in responding to the HSE. The timeline is there. I know the Deputy has kept in close contact with the Minister on that. The commercial proposal was ultimately received from Biogen on 27 May. It went through a lot of interactions before that, which, in my view, could have been quicker on the part of the company.

That said, there is a process where first a health technology assessment was published in December 2025. That is public and was not that strong in terms of its assessment of Skyclarys at the time. There was a clear recommendation from that. That was then moved on to the HSE drugs group. I accept there are issues in terms of how this gets communicated. However, up to now since the 2013 Act, there has not been a practice whereby there is a parallel political operation while this group is meeting monthly. I think 70 rare disease drugs were approved in the four years between 2021 and 2025. It was not the case that people were waiting every month. That is something we have to be conscious of. I understand it but we need to work on the communication of all that. These are scientists and people with expert knowledge who meet to assess drugs. They are not politicians. We have to protect that process too in terms of their assessment of the efficacy of drugs and so forth with regard to conditions. This year alone, 26 drugs for rare diseases have been approved and many more drugs outside of that.

It is a serious and urgent situation for the families. Our hearts go out to them. It is a disease that progresses and has severe impacts on those with the condition. It has now been referred to the rare diseases technology review committee and the Minister is taking steps to get that established as quickly as possible to assess this. It is my understanding that some of the national expertise and practising consultants in this field would be on that group, and I hope we can get an outcome as quickly as possible.

I met many of those patients and people with the illness yesterday. Many of them were here in Leinster House. They told me, as they have in the past, they cannot walk and they cannot swallow and, as the Taoiseach acknowledged, it is also very difficult for their families who have to watch as their condition worsens and the disease progresses. This drug was approved by the European Union in 2024, over two years ago. It is publicly available in many European countries and yet again Ireland lags behind and we are not providing this drug. I see it simply. This is about empowering the clinicians. At the moment clinicians treating those patients do not have the option of prescribing that drug. We should enable them to have that option because this is an issue for clinicians and patients to work out the best treatment for those patients. That is an option available in Italy, Germany and other countries. It is not available in Ireland.

When is that group going to be convened because those people who were here yesterday were really upset? There was no communication. They were making phone calls, and they fear more months of delay before a decision is made.

I accept the devastation for families on receiving that news yesterday. This is not the news they wanted to hear. The previous month a drug was approved and that was welcomed across the House. The very same group made that recommendation in respect of that drug. There is an urgency attached to this and we are prepared to work with Members of the House in terms of the processes. We all accept that, ultimately, there has to be a scientific perspective on this. I accept there is also a role for those at the front line clinically in respect of this condition, and in the neurological field more generally who are treating people with this condition. Many drugs have an evolutionary process. In other words, they can get better as they are refined and improved upon in the research. There is much more in terms of clinical trials and so on that the Minister-----

That concludes the question.

-----has published a strategy on.

I want to take up where we left off yesterday. When explaining why the Government was not going to buy Bessborough the Taoiseach said:

Excavation without evidence of location is neither feasible nor lawful [because] Under the Institutional Burials Act 2022, the Government can only [start an excavation] where it is satisfied that burials have taken place and there is evidence that those burials are manifestly inappropriate.

He then said, "I am advised that the legal threshold cannot currently be met because the location of many burials remains unknown." I cannot have been the only person listening who was stunned. The Government knows that 859 children and 19 women who were incarcerated at Bessborough are missing, presumed dead. It knows the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes said it was highly likely that burials had taken place on this land. It has all the evidence of abuse, suspicious deaths, disappeared women and children and likely burial, and the Taoiseach is telling us he is powerless to act because legislation his previous Government drafted and enacted is preventing him. This really is beneath contempt. I repeat again what he said yesterday. The Government needs evidence that burials were "manifestly inappropriate" before it can intervene. Is he actually trying to say that these burials were in any way manifestly appropriate, and discarding the remains of hundreds of children without a scrap of paper recording the burial location is appropriate? He now seems to be using that as an excuse for inaction, when what he should be doing is moving heaven and earth to find these children and 19 women who disappeared.

Two weeks ago, the Taoiseach told me that Cork City Council should have placed a compulsory purchase order on the land. Councillors on Cork City Council have now twice voted unanimously to CPO the land, mostly recently on Monday of this week. The councillors have been told that they cannot do that because the council does not have capital. The Taoiseach holds the purse strings. Quite frequently when I ask him an important question he comes back and speaks about how I do not have a monopoly on caring, about his bona fides and about how much he cares.

Respectfully, it does not matter how much the Taoiseach cares unless that is mirrored some way in his actions.

Hear, hear.

Can he please refrain from doing that in his reply today and focus on answering the questions? He is the Taoiseach of this country.

Please.

If he cared about this issue he would act. He could amend the burials Act. He could open the archives. He could negotiate with the developer. He could give money to Cork City Council to secure the land.

I thank the Deputy. I call on the Taoiseach to respond.

Will the Taoiseach do that? His hands are not tied; he is sitting on them. There is a difference.

Hear, hear.

A number of years ago, I met with Maureen Considine and some survivors in Bessborough. Deputy Cairns has often said we should talk to survivors. Their perspective is far different from hers in respect of Bessborough. I refer her to an article in today's Irish Examiner by Maureen Considine in respect of this issue. She established the Cork Survivors and Supporters Alliance, CSSA, in respect of this issue - in terms of the burials in Bessborough. The fundamental issue they wanted was to first of all establish where their babies were buried. Their sense was:

The mothers at the heart of our alliance are being overshadowed by an abstract human rights debate. Any demand for further disturbance of remains without their explicit input and consent is not an act of justice; it is a repetition of the original trauma where an institution exerted control over their children's burial. These mothers have inherent rights to privacy and space to grieve in peace.

The Cork Survivors and Supporters Alliance wanted to find out where the mothers' babies were buried. They were involved in legal submissions to a different application and employed experts and so forth. By the way, they do not believe that the current area of lands, which is the subject matter of the current An Bord Pleanála recommendation, is where the babies are buried. That is following their work with the experts they availed of. There are different perspectives from different survivors, which Deputy Cairns has ignored in all of her presentations. I also refer the Deputy to an article by Ann O'Gorman, based in Limerick, who lost her baby when it died 20 minutes after birth. The Deputy should read that article, which was in the Irish Independent some time ago. The point is Deputy Cairns has an extraordinary habit of distorting things that I say and conflating them. We are talking about 60 acres here. The planning permission for housing is not for the entirety of the 60 acres. It is for a part of it. There are two other lots of land. There are State services on the land. One hundred people are working in different services in Bessborough. There is childcare there, and so forth. It has been an active area of human activity for a long time-----

I thank the Taoiseach. I call Deputy Cairns.

-----long after the home closed. I know a lot about it because I have been around a long time in that area. I live nearby.

The time is up. I thank the Taoiseach. I call Deputy Cairns.

I will come back in a minute.

At the end of the day, there are a few things that we know and a few things that we do not know. We know the commission of investigation found that it is highly likely there are babies buried on the grounds. We do not know why it made that recommendation. Why? Because the archives are sealed. The Taoiseach took exception to that word yesterday. They are closed. He can call it whatever he wants. That is why we do not know why the commission made that recommendation. We know that archaeologists walked the site. We do not know what they said or recommended because the archive is sealed. We know that there was no ground-penetrating radar used. As far as we know, there were no soil samples and no test excavations. We do not know why. We know that we have this information for Tuam and for Sean Ross Abbey. We do not have it for Bessborough. We do not know why. The Taoiseach's whole argument amounts to "We simply don't have enough information to meet the threshold for excavation and examination." Why do we not? It is by design.

I thank Deputy Cairns. I call on the Taoiseach to respond.

It is very clearly by design that we do not have this information. I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that his answer to my questions was "No", so I will ask him this: will he simply release the archaeological report?

The Taoiseach will respond now.

Deputy Cairns has attacked the Institutional Burials Act. She implied it was imposed by this Government. It actually was agreed by the entire Dáil.

Not by me.

By the entire Dáil, including Deputy Cairns's party.

I put forward amendments at every Stage.

Respectfully, it works both ways.

Let us park that for a moment.

The Taoiseach can check the record.

It was agreed. When I spoke to Deputy Bacik yesterday, we had a constructive engagement and she asked certain things. Deputy Cairns cannot draw conclusions from yesterday in terms of what the Government's position on this ultimately will be because we said we would reflect on it. That is what I said yesterday and that is what I intend to do. We need to be mindful of all survivors. I think Deputy Cairns has been too dismissive of those I have quoted this morning. I met with them three or four years ago. I was very taken by what they said. They have come to the view that they wanted a proper memorial. They felt their children were within those grounds. By the way, they believe there was a burial ground there and that burials were not ad hoc, scattered all over the 60 acres.

It is the apartments-----

I am sorry, Deputy.

There is a very telling phrase in the article.

The Taoiseach's time is up.

If I could, I will just finish on this very sensitive issue. Their point is that there was not a blade of grass disturbed on that site.

It may be, but we are out of time. I call Deputy Bacik.

The way that site was organised, there would have been a burial ground. I accept the point that we have not located it, but there would have been a burial ground there.

I call Deputy Bacik.

That is the issue. It is not where they-----

The housing crisis continues to cut deep. The numbers in homelessness remain shockingly high. There are over 17,000 people in emergency accommodation, including 5,583 children. That is an appalling statistic and each figure represents an individual human tragedy. While the Dáil is in recess, sadly, many more people are likely to see an eviction notice land in their letterbox, and all of us know of those who are directly affected - like the young man who contacted me this week. He and his neighbours are being evicted at the end of the month with nowhere to go. Or like the young woman I am supporting, who was evicted into homelessness more than a year ago now. She has four children, two with significant disabilities, one of whom requires 24-hour medical care, and she has yet to be housed. She is relying on the goodwill of family and friends to keep a roof over her head. Another mother who is working full time was also evicted into homelessness a year ago. As a result, she has seen a deterioration in her youngest child, who has additional needs. I have supported her as she has been applying to every Government support scheme available but nothing has come good for her. Incredibly, her family has been deemed ineligible for priority treatment on exceptional grounds. Her ordeal should be unthinkable but, sadly, it is no longer a rarity.

All of us know of other families in similar situations because, under the Government, homelessness has sadly been normalised and evictions have continued apace, including mass evictions. The Government's housing policies have failed: policies on shed-sits, on evictions and rent hikes, on vacancy and dereliction but, above all, policies have failed to deliver on homes and social and affordable housing.

Let us take the Irish Glass Bottle site down the road in Poolbeg, where nearly 4,000 homes are set to be provided. At the weekend, letters uncovered by the Irish Independent revealed that the delivery of the social and affordable component of housing there is under threat. The Taoiseach knows there is a long history to this development. He will know it is the subject of a good faith agreement between the Department of housing, the developer, Dublin City Council and local residents. The agreement was to provide for the delivery of 900 social and affordable homes in an area where housing is desperately needed, where people are living in damp, mouldy homes in Pearse House, Markievicz House and other places with stairwells literally falling down. It is an area where market rents are sky high. An apartment on the Glass Bottle site rented privately costs more than €4,000 per month, yet the Minister for housing has been told that provision of much-needed social and affordable homes may now be delayed. Where will my constituents go?

Mere weeks ago, the Minister, Deputy James Browne, wrote that the most powerful tool we have to tackle homelessness is the delivery of social housing. It is possible, if we are determined enough, to use every single lever at our disposal. Will the Government use every lever at its disposal to tackle the housing crisis? Will the Taoiseach ensure delivery of the social and affordable homes promised at the Irish Glass Bottle site, and indeed across every community where they are so badly needed?

First, we will use every lever. I accept that housing is the social issue of our time. There is no question about that. We are using every lever but from time to time the Opposition objects to many of the levers that we deploy in respect of housing.

Could I pick the Deputy up on social housing? Between 2020 and 2025, we have delivered 60,000 social homes, through build, acquisition and leasing.

Over 9,000 new-build social homes were delivered in last year. That was the highest annual total in the State's history. We have made huge progress on social housing since 2020 in terms of the numbers of homes that are being built. Close to 23,000 social homes were in design or construction at the end of 2025. We are targeting about 72,000 new social homes by 2030. In addition, we are making progress regarding new starter homes. Some 36,000 houses were built last year. We will build more this year, and we need to build more again in 2027. That is the objective.

If we look at planning permission alone, we can see that the momentum is strong. Permission was granted for 34,000 new homes in the 12 months to the end of quarter 1 of 2026. This was up 8% year on year, with 13,000 commencements for the first five months of this year. That was up 161% year on year. The housing infrastructure fund is going to be significant and will unblock about 86,000 units. Real investment in dwellings was up close to 20% in 2025. Construction employment is up 33%, at 195,000, since 2020. Development land deals are up 55%, with quarter 1 of this year being the best quarter in this regard since 2019 being experienced. Home Building Finance Ireland's loan book has grown by 25% and a €1 billion housing infrastructure investment fund has been announced. The number of first-time buyers mortgage drawdowns in 2025 was 27,500, the highest volume since 2007. In May of this year, first-time buyers accounted for 59% of all mortgage approvals. That is up 44% on 2022. Progress is being made. The issue for us is to get to 50,000 per annum, and to do so on a sustainable basis over a ten-year period in order to meet population growth and demand.

Homelessness is a far more complex issue now than it was four or five years ago. There are many factors in homelessness.

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

Not least among these is the migration issue, which is having a significant impact. Across the board, we have taken significant initiatives, which have been opposed by the Opposition, to deliver housing. I still think that the Government's programme is more substantive, effective and impactful than any proposals that brought forward by other political parties in the House.

The Taoiseach can quote figures, but I have already quoted to him the shocking figure relating to those who are homeless. Let me also quote figures published just this week by the AIB construction purchasing managers index. Those figures show residential building contracting for the third consecutive month. There was a sharp contraction in construction activity in June, down to 45.4% from 50.2%. I use the debacle over the Poolbeg site to illustrate the difficulty the Government is in. The Government's overreliance on the private sector has simply failed to deliver homes at the necessary scale. Construction, including residential construction, is slowing. The private sector has a significant role to play, but the State needs to take on a far more prominent and proactive role. That is at the heart of the Labour Party's proposals and, indeed, the proposals of other Opposition parties. Central to provision is that promises on delivery must be kept. Should the developers of the Irish Glass Bottle site fail to honour the legally binding 15% planning condition, legal action will have to be taken.

Thank you, Deputy. The Taoiseach to respond.

It is very hard for my constituents and other people around the country who are homeless or facing the threat of eviction to see how little is being done by the Government.

Deputy, please. At the behest of the Chair, the Taoiseach will respond.

That is not real. On the Labour Party's proposal, namely the idea of setting up a new State-owned construction company-----

The Land Development Agency.

-----would take years and would not have any impact on house building right now or over the next five years for that matter. The Labour Party has produced a couple of pages on it, with nothing fleshed out. That is the bottom line. We already have the Land Development Agency-----

That is what I said. Ramp it up.

-----and that is delivering well, so why create a new one?

That is what we said. Ramp up the Land Development Agency.

It does not work like that, Deputy. Please respect the answer.

It has been ramped up, for God's sake. Billions are going into the Land Development Agency. That is how thin the Labour Party's proposals are. Genuinely, there is no real substance coming from the Opposition on housing in terms of adding to our stock. We did the exemption for back gardens, but those in opposition just dismissed that. We did rural housing and that was also dismissed. The Department also produced guidelines. The help to buy scheme, was opposed by the Opposition. The first home scheme was also opposed.

It is inflationary.

That has helped young people and first-time buyers enormously, so much so that the number of first-time buyer mortgages is way ahead now of any other type of mortgage.

Thank you Taoiseach, time is up. I call Deputy Stanley.

How do we get from 40,000-odd to 50,000?

Deputy Stanley is on his feet. Taoiseach, the time is up.

I want to raise the situation regarding the absence of health cover for a large section of the population. Many middle- and low-income households have either very limited health cover or none at all. Forty-five per cent of the population have some kind of private health insurance. Most people who have such insurance have very limited, partial and restricted cover. A total of 42% have medical cards that provide either full medical cover or just GP care. This breaks down to roughly 30% having full cover and 12% having GP care cover. What these figures show is that 57% of the population have very limited cover. Worst of all, 13% to 14% have absolutely no health cover whatsoever.

These workers and families are typically on low to middle incomes but they live in one of the richest countries in the world. That is a scandal. The facts are that the income thresholds relating to entitlement to a full medical card have not increased in over two decades. The Taoiseach was Minister for Health at the time. The thresholds are of the 1980s variety. The latest figures from this year show that a single person has to be on an income of less than €184 a week in order to qualify. The threshold for a couple to qualify for a full medical card is €266.50 per week. If they have two children, the threshold is €345 per week. For the GP-only card, the threshold is €373 a week for a single adult and €607 - which roughly equates to €30,000 per year - for a couple. This means that many households which cannot afford it have no access to even basic healthcare or GP care. In turn, this gives rise to medical neglect.

I fully support Sláintecare. We are making some progress on that, but it is not happening quickly enough. Ten years were allocated in respect of the implementation of Sláintecare and universal healthcare. Those ten years will run out in 17 months' time. The process relating to full implementation has to be stepped up.

The position relating to discretionary medical cards needs to be examined and improved. As a start, we need to ensure that cancer patients have full medical card cover. On 6 March 2025, the Minister for Health, who is sitting beside the Taoiseach, in reply to a parliamentary question I tabled, stated:

I can assure the Deputy that my Department keeps medical card issues under review ... Over the course of 2025, we will review the existing eligibility framework to clearly assess what is working well ... This is an important step towards delivering on universal healthcare

I agree with her on that, but it is 105 years since independence and the establishment of this State. Budget 2027 will be introduced in 12 weeks' time. I accept that everything cannot be done at once, but will the Government ensure, as the next step towards implementing Sláintecare, that income thresholds will be increased in order to provide medical card cover to the workers and families who do not have any at present? Will it also ensure, very importantly, that cancer patients have full medical card cover? I welcome the fact that the number of training places for GPs has been increased, but will the Government expand the process in this regard further and get the HSE to directly employ GPs in to fill the gap in rural and urban areas where people do not have access to GPs at present?

I thank Deputy Stanley for raising this issue. He mentioned that Ireland is well over 100 years in existence as an independent State. There is a great book by Mark Henry, In Fact: An Optimist’s Guide to Ireland at 100. It contains a great chapter on health that I invite Deputy Stanley to read. If he looks at what people were dying of in 1922 and 1923 and the average lifespan at that time and the position today, he will see that there is no comparison. There has been an incredible improvement in the average lifespan. Ultimately, that has to be the measurement of any health service and of a broader societal approach to health and well-being. With a life expectancy of 83 years in 2024, Ireland ranked sixth highest among EU member states. I was Minister for health from 2000 to 2004. We were nowhere near this level of life expectancy at that time. The reason was that we did not have any national strategies on the key killer diseases, namely cancer and cardiovascular disease. We developed national strategies from the late 1990s onwards for cancer and cardiovascular disease. These had very dramatic beneficial impacts.

Those strategies were followed by substantial investment as well. Our mortality rate fell by 16.1% over the decade from 2015 to 2024. Our mortality rate for all circulatory system diseases fell by 28%, with the rate for heart disease and stroke falling by 34% and 42%, respectively. The mortality rate for all cancers dropped by 13.7%, with cancer of the trachea, bronchus and lung and breast cancer dropping by 19.3% and 11.7%, respectively. The mortality rate for respiratory diseases is down by 23%. I just need to make those general points. We are making progress. The investment has been huge. We have invested exponentially now in our health services.

In respect of GP and primary care, we have now had the biggest expansion of access to free GP care in the history of the State. If we take medical cards and GP visit cards, about 2.3 million people are eligible for free GP care, including those with medical cards and GP visit cards. We have reduced the threshold for the drug payment scheme to €80 per month. We did this progressively over the past number of years. We have funded diagnostic scans now for patients. We have introduced free contraception for women up to the age of 35. We are publicly funding assisted human reproduction, including IVF, and free HRT.

I thank the Taoiseach.

We have also developed a much-needed revolution in women’s healthcare in terms of see-and-treat gynaecology clinics and-----

I thank the Taoiseach. You will be coming back in. I call Deputy Stanley.

-----fertility hubs and specialist menopause services. All that helps to gain greater access for patients.

I thank the Taoiseach. The time is up. I call Deputy Stanley.

That is all fair and good, and I acknowledge there has been progress. Of course, there has been progress in 105 years. There has been progress in my lifetime, which is a bit less than 105 years.

We can see from the Deputy's demeanour that he is doing very well.

I am hoping to get a bit longer than 83 years out of it.

The fundamental question here concerns people who do not have health cover. Progress is being made towards implementing Sláintecare, and I acknowledge, in particular, the stand taken by the Minister in relation to the contracts for consultants. If they are paid to work for the full week by the State, then they cannot do private work during that time. A plumber working for the Office of Public Work, OPW, cannot be off doing nixers during the day for somebody else. We support her in doing that.

Universal healthcare is where we have to get to. We are out of step with other states. The Taoiseach will have to admit, and he has not addressed this, that since he was the Minister for Health, those thresholds have not increased, and I acknowledge all the progress that has been made, although we have a distance to go yet. It is €184 for a single person, €266.50 for a couple and €345.50 per week for a family of four.

I thank the Deputy. The Taoiseach has the figures. I call the Taoiseach to respond now, please.

I again thank the Deputy for raising this issue. The biggest movement in the past couple of years has been the GP access card, the GP visit card, more than the medical card. I acknowledge that point. We have, however, reduced the drug threshold payment as well. We are also building up the public health system as per Sláintecare and Government decisions-----

The Taoiseach himself-----

-----which I think are, in many respects, extremely important in terms of the diagnostic hubs and the community-based model that has been evolving over the past number of years. It actually gives people very ready access to diagnostics and treatments in terms of not having to access the acute hospital system all the time.

On growing college and training places, which the Deputy referenced earlier, as he knows, there was a big investment in 2026 enabling higher education institutes to deliver over 1,100 new healthcare course places each year over the next three years.

I thank the Taoiseach.

We have had a particularly significant investment in more GP places in our colleges and clinical placements thereafter.

I thank the Taoiseach. I appreciate that there is a lot of information.

When this Government was formed just over 18 months ago, no one could have predicted the scale of the crisis unfolding in the Middle East, the disruption it would place on global energy markets and its impact on the cost of living in Ireland and across the world. In these times, the value of a capable and stable Government became clear. This coalition must continue to provide certainty for households, protect our living standards and keep our economy on track. Fuel supports introduced to shield families and workers from surging prices at the pumps have been extended into the autumn. The focus must now turn to October’s budget and the decisions needed to protect people from external shocks, sustain our prosperity and strengthen our economy for the years ahead.

Independents supporting the Government helped to shape last year’s budget, with a strong focus on protecting the most vulnerable and securing meaningful, long-term benefits. Earlier this month, the largest-ever increase in the carer's allowance income disregard took effect. That is real progress, and we are committed to phasing out the means test entirely during the lifetime of this Government. The central question now is what budget 2027 will do for working people.

Last year, income tax bands and personal tax credits were left untouched. As wages rise to meet the growing cost of living, workers are being unduly punished by the tax system. The people in the squeezed middle, the workers who keep our economy moving, need a meaningful tax package in October that will allow them to keep more of their hard-earned money. People living with a disability continue to face unavoidable additional costs in areas such as transport and healthcare. I welcome the cross-Government work conducted over the past year that has looked at the possibility of a permanent annual cost-of-disability payment. Budget 2027 should move that commitment in the programme for Government from the discussion phase to delivery and the establishment of this permanent payment.

Inheritance tax must be reviewed. The current inheritance tax regime is penal and is not fair or equitable. Families should be able to pass on a home, farm or business without there being an excess tax burden. We must also look at how people without children can pass on an inheritance to nieces, nephews or close relatives without being disproportionately penalised.

Prudent management of our economy is the cornerstone of good government. While people are struggling with the cost of living, they are further infuriated to see public money wasted. This squandering of taxpayers' money is evident across all Departments, State agencies and local authorities.

I thank the Deputy. I call the Taoiseach to respond.

The Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, requires the full support-----

I call the Taoiseach to respond, please.

-----of the Government to implement measures to-----

The time is up, Deputy.

-----reduce wasteful expenditure-----

I thank Deputy Lowry for raising a fundamental issue insofar as it affects the livelihoods of our citizens across the country, workers, those on pensions and so on. We rarely get opportunities to discuss the wider economy in this House. I was struck that earlier this week we had a significant investment by Intel of up to €5 billion in its site in Leixlip, and there was not a whisper in this House about it. It kind of tells us a story about the degree to which this House is divorced from the reality of economics and the economy, and how to sustain the economy and stay competitive. There is rarely a discussion in here on any of that.

If we take trade, for example, the main Opposition party is opposing the trade deal with Canada. Our exports to Canada have gone up fourfold since that trade deal came in provisionally. This has led to many jobs for SME companies in Ireland, as well as multinationals. Yet Sinn Féin’s response is to take it to the courts to try to get rid of it. This is the sort of extraordinarily bizarre take on the economy that we have to listen to in the House sometimes. We do not really have a proper to-and-fro debate on it.

Ultimately, we have a responsibility to try to provide jobs. We are doing that, and the growth in employment has been phenomenal. At the moment, we are at about 2,794,500 people working, as of the first quarter of 2026. We have a growing population. It now stands at over 5.5 million people, which is an increase of 10% between 2020 and 2026. There has been an incredible increase of 53% between 1995 and 2026. Being straight-up about it, there are pressures that have come from that.

We have to have a budget that reflects the need to sustain that level of work in our economy so that people will have access to jobs.

The AI issue is causing a lot of concern. I take heart from the investment announced by Intel this week, which will be AI-propelled, actually. That industry is now looking at an upward curve in the context of semiconductors, sensors and so on.

The Deputy is correct in saying that the conflict in the Middle East has had a huge impact. In the budget, we will endeavour to ease the pressure on families. There will be a package relating to income tax for families. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Calleary, is working on the cost-of-disability payment issue. That will be groundbreaking. It has never happened before. It is complex; it is not simple. There had to be public consultation in respect of it. We will do everything we can in the budget to try to alleviate the pressures on people brought about the Middle East war, the shock to supplies it has caused and the inflationary impact on fuel prices in particular to which it has given rise.

There is another group of people who cannot be overlooked, namely the self-employed. These people take risks, create employment and contribute significantly to the economy. The self-employed are at a disadvantage in accessing State supports and social protection. They do not have access to the new My Future Fund pension arrangements available to all employees. The Government should start setting out a clear pathway towards inclusion for the self-employed or an equivalent mechanism that will give them the same opportunity as others to build greater retirement security. Fairness for working people must include those who work for themselves. The self-employed make a huge contribution to our economy. In many cases, they are overlooked.

I appreciate the point. This is a pro-enterprise Government. That matters. I believe in nurturing and supporting companies and people who start their own businesses. Those people take great risks. In many instances, for the first ten years of a new company, they have to work 24-7. An issue we discuss with Enterprise Ireland is how to enable those companies to have capital to scale up. Part of our European Union Presidency programme is around competitiveness and giving a better break to SMEs in particular and giving them greater access to capital. Supporting the self-employed will continue to be a commitment of Government. It is an issue we keep under constant review. There is a cost-of-doing-business forum which comes under the remit of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade, and Employment and which is looking at what we can do to reduce costs, clarify and simplify regulation for SMEs in particular, which would go a long to helping them, and enhance the research and development tax credit in terms of making it available to and accessible by SMEs.

The Government is punishing special needs assistants, SNAs, for exercising their democratic rights. It is tearing up a local pay agreement worth 1.5% and a new special leave arrangement simply because workers rejected a separate workforce plan. There is much uncertainty, anxiety and anger about what is happening. SNAs do not know what the future holds. This move on the part of the Government is yet another insult. Will the Government reverse this reprehensible decision on local bargaining? Will it work in good faith to address the uncertainty and anxiety that exist? Will the Government side get back to the negotiating table as a matter of urgent priority in order to address the identified issues of contention and put a plan together that SNAs can support?

We put a comprehensive plan together in terms of the broader area of special education. We also issued a circular and so on. That was an agreement with the trade union Fórsa at the time. The matter went to ballot, and the result was not positive. Government always stands ready to engage with the trade union representatives in respect of the broader picture. The investment in SNAs has been huge. It will continue to be significant, as will the investment in special education across the board.

A hosepipe ban will come into force in a number of counties on the east coast from tomorrow. I completely understand that because we are seeing record temperatures and are in the middle of dealing with the climate crisis and climate change. It is important that we conserve water, but can the Taoiseach understand the frustration of many people being told that they have to conserve water when it appears that there is very little governance or oversight of the amount of water used by data centres, particularly those in the Dublin area? Uisce Éireann cannot seem to provide proper figures for the amount of water that is being abstracted at the moment. It reckons that about 800 ML, 0.13% of the national average, is being abstracted. However, that is less than what Meta has recorded as abstracting for one of its own plants.

Thank you, Deputy.

Uisce Éireann seems to have plucked its figure from thin air.

The Taoiseach, please.

Will the Taoiseach ensure that there is oversight-----

Time is up, Deputy.

-----of the amount of water that data centres use?

We can, but I am not clear about the direction in which the Deputy is heading on that. Is she saying that we should shut them down or put them out of use-----

We need to know what they are using.

Deputy, it does not work like that.

------with all the implications that-----

We need to go into this with our eyes wide open.

Deputy, do you want the answer?

------would have for users of technology? The hosepipe ban is important but trying to juxtapose, having the big baddie over here and saying we should not have a hosepipe ban because------

We have no idea how much water data centres are using. It is incredible.

No, Deputy Whitmore. Please.

I just do not think that is a valid juxtaposition.

Yesterday evening, I met a group of individuals who have Friedreich’s ataxia and their families here in Leinster House. They are calling for urgent access to Skyclarys, the life-changing drug for those living with this rare, degenerative neurological condition. I offered them my full support and that of the Labour Party. My colleague Deputy Sherlock has already given them her full support. I was with them when the very disappointing news filtered through that the HSE drugs group had deferred its decision on approval of public funding for the drug. The news in this regard was leaked by means of communications with public representatives as opposed to officially. the Taoiseach acknowledged earlier that there has been poor communication with the group. I ask that this be addressed. Clearly, the most substantive issue is the delay in providing approval for reimbursements. Skyclarys is already being reimbursed in other EU countries. We need to work with other EU member states to reduce costs in line with the Irish EU Presidency priority of competitiveness. Can the Taoiseach give the families some indication that the approval-----

Thank you.

-----process will be expedited and that there will be no further delays?

The Taoiseach, please.

As the Taoiseach understands, this is a heartbreaking situation.

Deputy, please. I call the Taoiseach.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter, which I dealt with extensively earlier in reply to Deputy Cullinane. The Minister is doing everything she can to expedite the convening of the rare disease technology group, to which the matter has been referred. This is very serious and urgent for all concerned. Some countries do reimburse it and others do not. The health technology assessment relating to this matter was published. If the Deputy reads that assessment, she will see that it proved challenging. We are not scientists, but we all feel for the families. We understand. We have met people with Friedreich's ataxia. They cannot get this drug fast enough. For all drug approvals unfortunately, there are processes which, unfortunately, have to be gone through. I take the Deputy's point.

There has been rightful focus on road safety over the past week in the context of discussions on illegal use of scrambler bikes and the dangerous use of e-scooters. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, are due to make significant decisions about new laws soon. The Road Safety Authority estimates that about 5% of the adult population uses e-scoters. That is tens of thousands who use these devices, mainly as part of the work commute. We have rightly focused on the bad and dangerous behaviour that is out there, but there are plenty of people who are law abiding and who do their best to drive safely. They use e-scooters because they are more convenient and are cheaper to run in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. In the decision it is about to make on new rules for e-scooters, the Government should keep in mind the position of thousands of adults who use e-scooters responsibly, who need them for their commute and who should not be punished because of the dangerous behaviour of some individuals.

I take the Deputy's point. The Minister for Health has sought a comprehensive report from Children's Health Ireland on one of the issues that concerns me, namely injuries to children arising as a result of e-scooter accidents. I refer, in particular, to head injuries, brain damage and so on. We have to assess that report when we get it as a factor in how we deal with this issue. The Minister of State, Deputy Canney, will be bringing proposals to Government. We will have meetings next week in relation to this. We will then be in a position the, perhaps, to engage more widely with Members of the House on the matter. This is a very serious issue for us.

Without question, it probably did not have the regulatory framework it should have had at the outset. That is something we need to look at.

This matter has been raised twice already this morning, but it is hugely important. I will make a personal appeal to the Taoiseach regarding Skyclarys and the further delay that has now arisen. Yesterday, Emma O'Shea came to Leinster House from west Cork with her mother, father and brother. I am in regular contact with Emma, but seeing her here again yesterday fighting courageously for a medication that could help to slow the progression of this cruel disease had a profound impact on me and my staff. Emma is just 26 years of age and is now confined to a wheelchair. Her family knows all too well the reality of Friedreich's ataxia because Emma's brother died from this disease. Last night when Emma got back to west Cork and learned there would be yet another delay, she sent me a text message. Her words were simple: "It is a joke. I am heartbroken". Every day matters for Emma. Every delay means more deterioration, more uncertainty and more fear.

I am not hear to blame the Taoiseach. I am asking the Taoiseach to get personally involved and to put the full weight of his office behind this issue. I hate to be so blunt, but what happened to Emma's brother cannot be allowed to happen to Emma-----

Thank you, Deputy.

------because of delays. I urge the Taoiseach to please do everything in his power to get this medication across the line.

Time is up, Deputy.

Emma's family and other families like them simply do not have time to wait.

I thank the Deputy for raising the situation and how it personally impacts on Emma O'Shea from west Cork. Well over 200 families are impacted by this rare condition. It is particularly high in Ireland in comparison with other locations. I accept fully the impact and trauma on Emma's and other families. The Minister is doing everything possible to progress the issue and get the group established.

There is a broader issue about the assessment of new drugs and how we do that. We have to have a scientific dimension to it and a proper rigorous evaluation of the efficacy of drugs. I think that is accepted. Over 70 drugs for rare diseases have been approved in the last four years, so we do approve drugs for rare diseases-----

Thank you, Taoiseach.

-----as per the exiting process that is laid down in legislation. However, I take the Deputy's overall point.

I raise the issue of Uisce Éireann and the lack of meaningful engagement it has with the public and public representatives. I have had a number of dealings with it recently, most notably on James Larkin Road where it is doing an important project. While there has been engagement with public representatives, there has been no meaningful reaction to the problems raised about the traffic chaos on the Howth Road and on the way into Raheny village. A number of suggestions have been put forward to Uisce Éireann.

In the Mask area of Artane, there is severe discolouration of water in households. Uisce Éireann sent someone out, but the water appeared discoloured again a number of hours later. When this was raised with Uisce Éireann, it said that the issue had been resolved. It is extremely frustrating dealing with Uisce Éireann. It seems to be accountable to no one, in particular public representatives. Something must change.

I thank the Deputy very much for raising the issue. He said that there had been engagement but the responses had not been effective or impactful. I will take the matter up with Uisce Éireann. It has established a unit on the effectiveness of communications with public representatives. I have brought this to the attention of Uisce Éireann, as has the Minister, and it has undertaken a review of engagement with elected representatives with input from across its entire business. That is due to conclude shortly. That is a general point about how it engages with public representatives, including Members of this House.

On the specifics, I have had engagement in the past on matters of the kind the Deputy raised. I did get a response ultimately. It was quite a few years ago. It was about residential concerns, disruptions and so on that could happen when major works were under way. I will engage with the company to see if we can get an improvement from the Deputy's perspective.

I will ask about home support services, which are raised in my constituency office time and again by families across Cavan and Monaghan. Many people who have been approved for home support hours are still experiencing delays in receiving the care they have been assessed as needing. This creates understandable worry for older people who wish to remain living independently at home and places additional pressure on family members who often step in to fill the gap. Many people are currently waiting for approved home support hours to be delivered.

I would welcome an update on the measures being taken to recruit and retain home support workers, particularly in rural areas, where staff challenges can be more acute. This issue has persisted for a number of years in Cavan and Monaghan, and in the country as a whole. Many families would appreciate reassurances that progress was being made to improve access to these vital services. The home support service can help with everyday tasks such as dressing, undressing and getting in and out of bed.

What is the Government doing to make sure that staff and resources are in place to allow people who want to stay in their homes do so in Cavan and Monaghan?

I thank Deputy Maxwell. This is an important point for his constituents in Cavan-Monaghan. By way of update, 302 people were on waiting lists for home support at the end of May in Cavan-Monaghan, including 33 new applicants and 269 people already receiving support who require additional hours.

Specifically on the point the Deputy raised, I met the HSE as recently as yesterday. One of the key areas I focused on was Cavan-Monaghan. The HSE gave me an assurance. The last recruitment campaign of home support workers was in April. It has interviews scheduled for tomorrow, 16 July and Friday, 17 July, of 17 candidates to replace ten whole-time equivalents. Furthermore, ten new staff commenced in January 2026. The recruitment of additional staff is under way, with ten staff already in place since January. We want to get a further ten staff in place as quickly as possible and 17 candidates will be interviewed tomorrow and the day after for those posts.

This is Groundhog Day in terms of school transport. It is the same as last year. The only thing that has changed in the school transport system is the families affected. We are still inundated with emails from frustrated parents from Rathdrum to Kilmuckridge. Children who have always qualified have suddenly been refused tickets. Others received tickets but no service is available. In other cases, one sibling got a ticket while another sibling attending the same school did not, so the parent drives behind the bus. We submitted 12 names during the year for Castletown National School and 21 for a service from Camolin to the Gorey Educate Together school. Families are still waiting for certainty. Children in Coláiste Bhríde, Carnew, who had always received transport were told no service was available, but when we contacted the provider, it said that a service was available. The waiting time to hear back from Bus Éireann is unacceptable. When will the Government introduce the policy recommendations on eligibility and distance that were outlined previously?

First of all, the school transport scheme is a very extensive scheme. About 180,000 students are now carried on the school bus transport system. Costs have been increasing on a yearly basis, as has investment in the programme. There are limits to what we can do. We cannot do everything in one year. However, we continue to work on it.

The Minister of State with responsibility for special education and school transport, Michael Moynihan, has been engaged on this for the last year and a half. We are making improvements to it and the changes to the eligibility criteria will be implemented on a phased basis. The numbers have increased. There are pilot projects. About 11 were approved for the 2025-26 year where the distance criterion was reduced to 2 km for primary and post-primary schools. The need for a pupil to be attending the nearest school has been removed, as the Deputy will be aware, in those 11 pilots, so we will see how they work out.

In recent weeks, the Taoiseach talked about the importance of the Minister of State with responsibility for the marine. However, incredibly, it is the Minister for agriculture who will address the European Parliament's committee on fisheries today. He is having an exchange of views with the members of that committee, not the Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries, Deputy Dooley. There is clearly a row. Letters have been exchanged. I ask the Taoiseach to intervene and make clear that it is the Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries, who has been engaging in widespread consultation with the fishing industry and seafood industry in Ireland and Europe over the last year and a half, who should represent Ireland. He knows what he is talking about. That would give a clear message that the Taoiseach is serious about giving the Department of marine and the Minister of State with responsibility for the marine independence to speak and fight for our people, rather than the Minister for agriculture, who could not possibly know anything about these matters.

The Deputy's endorsement of the competence of the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, is duly noted. I hope it will not come back to haunt him some day in subsequent events. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, is an effective Minister of State with responsibility for the marine and has a great rapport with the industry.

I appreciate the Deputy saying that. Deputy Heydon, of course, is the senior Minister in the Department and has been working with the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, with regard to fishery interests and other issues. That is the basic position.

The Taoiseach is not going to intervene.

There is an issue that has come to me in Dublin Fingal West, although it affects the country at large. I refer to the spiralling cost of summer camps and the financial burden it is placing on households earning lower to middle incomes. One parent told me that they were paying €160 a week for three hours over four days. If a family has two or three children, that cost may put these opportunities completely out of reach. I raised this last week as a Topical Issue but the response focused on childcare and the national childcare scheme, NCS. With respect, that missed the point I was trying to make. Summer camps are effectively run by the likes of sports clubs. Nobody is asking for camps to be made free. We recognise that providers face genuine costs. They deserve supports for the valuable services they provide. Will the Department examine the introduction of a means-tested summer camp subsidy in budget 2027 so that no child misses out simply because his or her family cannot afford summer camp fees?

Is it that the Deputy wants the State to subsidise general summer camps?

Yes, but on a means-tested basis.

We are providing enormous funding for the summer education programme and so on. There have to be limits to Government expenditure. Local authorities have been supporting summer camps on a local basis. I think that, in Cork city, it has been going on for 40-odd years that we have allocated funding to local summer camps organised by community associations and so on. There are limits to what the State can do in all of these scenarios. We have prioritised education, and special education in particular. Under that programme, there are also supports for particular communities in which there may be high levels of disadvantage.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the staff for being so accommodating this parliamentary term.

Deputy Sheehan is looking for extra time.

I raise the issue of the community access support team, CAST, in Limerick, which has prevented 133 detentions under section 12 of the Mental Health Act and reduced the number emergency department presentations. It has responded to over 1,000 incidents. There is evidence for this and the University of Limerick published a report last week. It has been extraordinarily successful. It needs a dedicated core budget. It has been transformative in normalising a non-criminalising response to mental health. Will the Government formally establish this team as a national interagency crisis response service in the upcoming budget?

I thank the Deputy for his support for CAST. I am extremely proud of this pilot project, which we started working on in 2022. I compliment Superintendent Andrew Lacey, who has done phenomenal work on this for many years. At our initial conference in UL, we heard from police forces from Canada, elsewhere in North America, Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The pilot has been really impressive. As the Deputy has said, it has resulted in 133 people being deflected away from emergency departments. For anyone who does not know, how it works is that, when gardaí respond, a dedicated mental health clinical nurse practitioner travels in the car and intervenes when it is safe to do so.

I spoke with the superintendent last week. I have also spoken with the regional executive officer, Sandra Broderick. They feel that there is a little bit more work to do before the initiative is ready to mainstream. On funding, as the Deputy will know, we now have six regional health areas. Each regional executive officer can mainstream these types of supports. There is a little bit more to do. We will then be able to roll it out.

Maidir le hUisce Éireann, cad a dhéanfaimid feasta gan uisce? The situation in south Tipperary has reached crisis point. Since January, the Ardfinnan regional water scheme has experienced 58 water supply interruptions, affecting 11,000 customers, while almost 28,000 homes and businesses were placed on a boil water notice in a single week. The water is consistently off. Tipperary town has been under a boil water notice since last February. There is no sign of it being lifted.

One constituent summed up the frustration, telling me that there was yet again no water pressure when the house was full of grandchildren. The attic tank was not filling, so there was no water for cooking, showers or washing clothes. All of this was happening before the introduction of a hosepipe ban. They say it would be great to have water to be affected by a hosepipe ban.

Uisce Éireann is totally out of control. Two weeks ago, the Tánaiste gave me some hope here that the Government might do something. Uisce Éireann is not acting for anybody. It is committing sabotage on the Ardfinnan regional water scheme and the Glenary plant in Clonmel. It is now going on to the Galtees and causing havoc. The reservoirs have not been full in about two and half years despite Uisce Éireann getting tens of millions.

I call the Taoiseach to respond. Deputy McGrath's time is up.

Something has to be done with Uisce Éireann because-----

The Taoiseach will respond.

I thank Deputy McGrath. I acknowledge and accept that there are very serious issues across south Tipperary in respect of water outages and boil water notices. I will raise the issue with Uisce Éireann. We have allocated very substantial equity and investment to Uisce Éireann, particularly in the context of the national development plan. I will get an update for the Deputy.

I raise the issue of the lack of a plan for a new public sector pay deal and the lack of engagement on this matter. SIPTU, Fórsa, Unite and the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, are now to ballot their members for industrial action, up to and including strike action. The public sector pay deal expired on 30 June and formal talks have yet to begin on a successor agreement. We are in the final week before Dáil Éireann goes into recess for the summer and trade unions and workers in the public sector are none the wiser about their future income and job security. Despite the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, looming back to school costs, winter on the horizon, the cost of fuel, third level education costs, and rents being reset to market value, the Government is leaving these workers in limbo. When will workers see the Government at the negotiation table with trade unions to deliver a fair public sector pay deal for workers across this country so that we can stop strike action from happening?

First of all, the Government wants to secure a pay deal with the public sector workers and their representatives. That has been very clear in recent meetings and engagements. In my view, we reached an agreement, which has now expired. What normally happens is that engagement takes place, there are informal soundings and so on, and formal talks then begin. My sense is that there was never an expectation that these talks would happen before September in real terms. I expect talks to develop apace in September.

Is the Taoiseach concerned about what is happening in our courts as a result of the debacle in handling criminal legal aid reform? We have seen substantial numbers of solicitors withdraw from the scheme. I am told that the solicitors who have withdrawn provided representation in the majority of cases involving the legal aid scheme last year. More important, we have seen thousands of criminal cases adjourned. We have seen victims turning up to court only to be turned away. They are waiting for justice. We have also seen people who should be in custody today being released on bail. At the same time, we have seen remand numbers increase exponentially, putting huge pressure on the already overstretched Prison Service. Will the Taoiseach ensure that there is dialogue with the stakeholders? Sort this out. We cannot allow the chaos in our courts system to continue over the summer months. Will the Taoiseach ensure that there is real dialogue this week to bring an end to this?

May I first of all say that these are reforms that the Minister for justice has brought in? He sought Government approval for these reforms. I do not know what the Deputy's position is on the reforms per se but it is without question that the system needed reform. I hope the Deputy accepts that. Perhaps he could articulate that at some stage.

I am just asking for engagement.

There has been engagement.

No, there has not.

The Minister and the Department have engaged with the Law Society. I am concerned because I think people should not be withdrawing their services. I ask those who are doing so to rethink and reflect, and to do what in my view is their obligation, which is to represent people in court. What was going on in many cases was not acceptable either in terms of multiple adjournments and so on.

Well, there are more now than ever.

The fee structure needed to be reviewed and reformed.

The Taoiseach will not call for dialogue this week.

The decision of the Government to purchase the Hammerson site on O'Connell Street - the site of the old Carlton Cinema - clearly shows the intent and determination of the Government to progress and complete the MetroLink project. Hopefully, the intent and determination are not limited to MetroLink or to other transport projects within the Dublin area. As the Taoiseach will know, I am referring to the Galway city ring road, which has been granted planning permission. However, that grant is subject to judicial review, which could derail the project. The city cannot countenance that, and the region needs this project urgently.

There are also approximately 50 families who are subject to the compulsory purchase order, CPO, process. I ask that there would be an early settlement strategy for those families. They have been aware for over ten years now that their homes and lands are subject to this process and that they will have to move on. It is important that we move on this at the earliest opportunity for those families and for the good of the project.

First of all, I thank Deputy Connolly for raising this issue. He has been a consistently strong advocate for the Galway city ring road. I accept his point that there has to be a similar intensity in terms of getting this project under way as there is in terms of the metro because this is choking Galway. It is extremely difficult for people living in the Galway area to get from A to B. It also has potentially significant negative impacts on industry in the Galway region, particularly for people and families more generally. I have said to the Minister for Transport that I believe very strong engagement should take place. It is not for Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, but the councils and so on, but the Deputy's idea of an early settlement strategy is one I would put to the Minister and it is one that should be embarked upon.

I need to raise with the Taoiseach the straw incorporation measures and the delays from the Department of agriculture in approvals. There is fine weather. Tillage farmers are focusing in on the harvest. There have been no approvals issued by the Department of agriculture for the straw incorporation measure at this point. Farmers have nominated lands that they plan to harvest in the days and weeks ahead. The chopping will be done as part of the harvest. Tillage farmers have seen one difficult year after another and they really do not need the hassle being introduced now by the Department of agriculture not having approvals done yet. It is going to become even more critical as the barley crop ripens. Will the Department of agriculture issue approvals for the straw incorporation measure to give certainty to tillage farmers before the harvesters roll into the field?

I thank Deputy Moynihan for raising this issue. It is an important issue. This year has seen very high levels of applications for this scheme, extending well beyond the €10 million per year allocation. It is €50 million from 2023 to 2027. All possible options are now being examined by the Department in respect of the high numbers that have applied. Decisions will be made shortly to allow farmers to plan accordingly. Farmers will be notified as soon as possible by the Department of agriculture about the details of the scheme for 2026. I am aware of the issue and will pursue it as well on behalf of the Deputy.

I call Deputy Murphy. We will go over time, so I ask the two remaining Deputies to be brief.

I want to briefly amplify what has already been said about Uisce Éireann. South Tipperary is in crisis, with 38,0000 households on a prolonged boil water notice. Most of the key towns are more often than not without water. Will the Taoiseach request a meeting for the Oireachtas Members with the CEO of Uisce Éireann, Mr. Gleeson?

There is also the issue of accountability. A public utility in receipt of significant taxpayer funding should be accountable to the Dáil. I cannot table a parliamentary question for this organisation. More importantly, however, it should be accountable to the existing committee structure within the Oireachtas or, even better, we should see the establishment of a dedicated Oireachtas committee for our public utility companies that are in receipt of significant taxpayer funding.

I thank Deputy Murphy for raising the issue. He raised a number of important points. I will seek to convene a meeting with the CEO of Uisce Éireann and the Deputies for the area. I will also examine the Deputy's issue around Oireachtas committee structures and things like that. That is a fair issue. I am not suggesting that every semi-State body should be subject to parliamentary questions because with artificial intelligence, AI, now we are seeing a huge generation of parliamentary questions. In other words, we want people sorting out the water problems instead of being consumed by responding. There is a balance here to be struck. Uisce Éireann needs to get focused on the issues and get it sorted.

My constituency and others have seen a huge number of childcare providers leaving the core funding scheme because of the fee freeze, which is kind of a financial straitjacket, with staffing taking up 7% and a lot of huge costs. Meanwhile, the newer ones are able to set much higher fee baselines, although in areas like the Adamstown strategic development zone, SDZ, the rents are so high that we do not have as many places opening as there could be. Will this matter be revisited to look at ways of keeping providers and maybe encouraging some to come back into the scheme? Parents are worried about the massive increase in prices this coming autumn.

I will talk to the Minister. I did not get the final point the Deputy made. The issue is that about 93% of all eligible providers have signed up to the current core funding scheme. Some are leaving in certain areas, as was articulated yesterday-----

Yes, the older ones are leaving because they cannot afford it whereas the newer ones find it easier.

I will engage with the Minister for children on this and ask her to talk to the Deputy in respect of the points he made. Our aim is to try to get the fees down and we have made a lot of progress in the last number of years in doing that. I hope that people are not exiting in certain areas because they feel they can get better prices on the market as opposed to the constraints that the core funding scheme puts on people.

I move:

That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in accordance with Standing Order 187(2).

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 (Section 9(2)) (Amount of Financial Contribution) Order 2025 (Revocation) Order 2026,

a copy of which was laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 2nd July, 2026.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Deputies for meeting to discuss this motion concerning the order I propose to make, in conjunction with the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, to reduce the monthly financial contribution payable under the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, scheme to €400 from September 2026. The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf. The scheme currently involves a tax-free monthly payment of €600 to hosts per eligible property used to accommodate people granted temporary protection from Ukraine.

The motion before the House arises on foot of a Government decision of 26 May last in respect of the phased reduction of the ARP from €600 to €400 from 1 September next, with a view to ending the scheme entirely at the end of March 2027. As the payment is made monthly in arrears, the first payment at the reduced rate will be made in October.

The ARP scheme is provided for under Part 2 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022. Section 9 of that Act enables me to make an order amending the amount payable under the scheme, with the consent of the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister for public expenditure and reform. I have consulted both Ministers, who have expressed support for the proposed reduction in the rate. The Act of 2022 also provides that the draft order laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas cannot be made law until a resolution approving the order has been passed by each House.

The ARP scheme was introduced as an emergency measure at a time of exceptional need, when the demand for accommodation for those seeking refuge from Ukraine outstripped the availability of accommodation. The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation. It has introduced a stream of accommodation that would not otherwise have been available, and it has allowed my Department to move away from a reliance on State-contracted accommodation in the tourism sector. Since July 2022, the scheme has supported more than 29,000 hosts providing accommodation to approximately 66,500 people granted temporary protection. There are currently over 41,000 people with temporary protection accommodated with the support of the scheme. I thank the hosts who have opened their homes, the Irish Red Cross, the International Organization for Migration, their partners and the Irish public, who have shown unwavering solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

The scheme's payment rate is not, nor has it ever been, linked to the actual cost incurred by the person providing the accommodation. It is a recognition of the valued contribution of those who host. The payment is not intended to substitute rent, nor is it available where a rental agreement is in place. It is also not aligned with market rental rates. The rate has previously been amended twice. It was increased from €400 to €800 on 1 December 2022 to coincide with the introduction of the offer a home scheme. This measure was invaluable in generating emergency accommodation from a stock of holiday homes and largely unused vacant properties. The rate was subsequently reduced to €600 from 1 June last year to address concerns about the scheme's potential impact on the rental market. Other measures were also taken earlier this year to limit eligibility for the scheme to preclude properties registered with the Residential Tenancies Board with a view to safeguarding rental accommodation for tenants.

The draft order before the House would have the effect of revoking the previous order amending the monthly contribution rate and restoring the rate to the original value of €400 specified in the 2022 Act when it commenced.

I note the amendment Deputy Carthy has tabled. That will be addressed later.

I recognise the concerns raised by Members of this House in previous debates about the equity of the scheme, which is not available to other cohorts. To that end, my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I had signalled plans to phase out the scheme when the scheme's extension until 2027 was considered by the Houses in March. This remains our position.

The Minister has outlined very clearly our intention in relation to this matter. We have always been very clear that the ARP would be a temporary provision. It was introduced in 2022 as a response to a crisis, always with the view that it would be phased out. That remains the case. The planned closure date for the scheme is March of next year. As the Minister indicated, we have engaged in a number of processes with a view to looking at the longer term situation for Ukrainian people who are in our country, who have made a home for themselves here and who we want to continue to encourage to participate in Ireland in every way.

The measure before the House will enable that. However, we believe the time for the temporary scheme has come to an end. Therefore, March 2027 remains the date for bringing it to an end.

It is important to look at the ARP in the context of what is happening here. We are reducing the payment back to the original rate in order to fulfil the original intention. We thank the people for the generosity they showed in opening their homes to Ukrainians who came to live with us here in Ireland. The latter is part of Ireland's ongoing support for Ukraine as it endures the totally unacceptable war of aggression being waged against it by Russia. We want a situation whereby people will have the ability to share their homes with Ukrainians. Other measures are in place in this regard, including the rent a room scheme. People can continue to have arrangements with Ukrainians if they so wish. What we are bringing to a close is the temporary nature of the ARP. It is important, as the Minister has mentioned, to recognise and thank all of the people who participated in the scheme, and to recognise the work of the Irish Red Cross and the many people who have made the scheme a success. We recognise that there are difficulties with schemes, and that is why this one has been under constant review. It is also why we have taken the decision to see the approval of the Dáil to reduce the payment to €400 and why we put other measures in place.

It is important to recognise that Ukrainian people play an incredible role at so many levels within our society. They have come here, endeared themselves to the Irish people and made a great contribution to our country in a few short years. What we want to work towards is a solution which recognises that contribution and which examines how, in the longer term, we can work with the Ukrainian people in our country and with the Government of Ukraine in order to ensure that a pathway exists for them to either continue to live here or, if they so choose, to return home. All of the necessary supports in that regard will be put in place by the Government. Deputies' approval for the motion is important, particularly as it will lead to a more equitable and better outcome for everybody, including Ukrainians in our country.

I move amendment No. 1:

To insert after "on 2nd July, 2026":

"and:

further calls on the Government to provide that the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme shall apply only to:

— existing recipients with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme where those beneficiaries of temporary protection have satisfied a means test similar to those applicable for other housing assistance payments;

— new applications who propose to host a beneficiary of temporary protection in their property which is also their own primary residence and who have not availed of the Rent-a-Room Scheme in the previous 24 months; ensuring that the ARP does not further distort the rental sector; and

— recipients who are not in receipt of any additional or 'top-up' payments from a beneficiary of temporary protection.".

The Minister and Minister of State know that Sinn Féin and I have been raising serious concerns about the Ukrainian ARP scheme for a long time. It is interesting that the Minister of State suggests that the motion is about returning to the original intention behind the scheme. That is a tacit acknowledgement that there was a move away from the original intention. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the onset of war, there was an enormous and generous response from the Irish people, particularly those who opened their homes and their spare rooms to Ukrainians fleeing the war. Those people absolutely deserve to be commended.

When the ARP scheme was brought before the House, there was absolutely unanimous support for it. However, Government moved away from the original intention behind that scheme, at one stage increasing the payment to €800 per month. That was a tax-free payment given directly to landlords, with no means test applied. This meant that a person who was on more wages than someone who was in desperate need of housing could benefit from the scheme when the latter could not. The exclusionary nature of the scheme, available to Ukrainians fleeing war but not to anybody from anywhere else in the world, including Irish citizens in this State, led to heightened division in communities all over the country. We in Sinn Féin repeatedly brought people's concerns to the attention of the Government, but we were repeatedly ignored. Likewise, it ignored the concerns repeatedly brought to its attention regarding the impact this was having on the private rental market in certain areas. For several years, the Government refused point-blank to acknowledge that this was having an impact on the private rental market until the Department of housing's reports highlighted out what was already blatantly obvious. The scheme was being utilised by landlords to receive tax-free payments in respect of which they could demand top-up payments from tenants or residents but with none of the obligations that would apply in respect of other tenants in a dwelling.

It took a huge amount of effort and wherewithal to drag the Government to a place where it finally and reluctantly acknowledged that there were serious problems with this scheme. That is why we have seen the backtracking that has taken place over the past number of months, and the ultimate decision to bring the scheme to an end on 31 March 2027. What we still do not have is clarity as to what impact Government decisions will now have regarding private rental accommodation and the wider situation relating to housing. The truth is that after March of next year, there will be thousands of Ukrainians who will be moved from either ARP accommodation or State accommodation. Once again, in an all too familiar story, we will end up with a belated and, probably, knee-jerk response.

The Government completely ignored the unfairness at the heart of this scheme regarding the putting in place of a housing support for one cohort, the members of which, nobody disputes, were in need of housing, but that was not available to any other cohort. It put in place non-means-tested housing assistance. That was deeply unfair and led to the heightened division which we have seen over the past number of years and which have been exploited by some nasty actors.

Let us imagine a situation where two people on a factory floor whose earnings are the same are in need of housing. One is left to languish on a local authority housing list or, perhaps, does not even for that list and is forced to deal with the private rental market in circumstances where they are extorted. The other person, who earns the same wages and who, perhaps, has the same housing needs, because they were born in a particular place on the planet, has access to a housing support to which no means test applies and for which the landlord is getting a tax-free payment in respect of which a top-up can be paid. That is clearly a roadmap to create division and dissent. It is absolutely unforgivable. Everybody recognises and accepts that there was an emergency situation in 2022 and that there was a need to be nimble and introduce measures quickly. However, to allow that to continue for five years is inexcusable. That is why we have brought forward similar amendments on several occasions suggesting that a means test be introduced in order to ensure fairness. The Government rejected those amendments.

Let us bring it back to the original intention. This payment should be for people who are accommodating, in their own homes, people fleeing war. Everybody accepts that is a good initiative which should be supported. In fact, that type of initiative should be expanded to other people in need of housing. Every time our amendments have been brought forward, the Government has rejected them and denied the existence of any of the issues at the heart of them. To their shame, other Opposition parties have also objected and refused to support the amendments to which I refer and called me all sorts of names for having the audacity to look for a bit of fairness and transparency in respect of all this.

This scheme will end in March next year. We still do not have transparency regarding the number of dwellings that were utilised in the context of this scheme and that should and could have been available on the private rental market. That is the litmus test. In its documentation and reports, the Department of housing has acknowledged that this scheme had an impact on the private rental market, yet Government has consistently refused to divulge exactly how big that impact has been. That points to a fear on the part of the Government that if the figures were divulged, it would be seen to have used taxpayers' money to create a significant distortion, especially in areas where rents in the private rental market would traditionally have been lower. People have been denied housing as a result of this scheme. That is unacceptable.

I say to those Opposition parties that have taken the opportunity to attack Sinn Féin every time the ARP comes up that they should read the Government's report, namely the regulatory impact analysis relating to the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026.

That set out very clearly what Sinn Féin has said time and time again in relation to the ARP scheme, namely, that it is having a negative impact on the private rental sector. That is beyond doubt. Dragging this out and then creating another cliff edge in March of next year will affect thousands of people whom we do not yet know how they are going to be housed and whether the Government is going to introduce something else that will further distort the private rental sector or the housing market. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State to learn from their mistakes and engage with all Members of this House and the appropriate committees before the very last minute, as has been standard up until now.

Before I call Deputy Gannon, I welcome the Spangle Hill Men's Shed group, who are visiting Dáil Éireann today with Deputy O'Flynn.

The Social Democrats will be opposing this motion and the amendment. The motion is not simply an administrative change, but a decision to reduce the accommodation recognition payment from €600 to €400 per month. I believe that is the wrong decision, not because this scheme should exist forever, but because reducing the payment now will make an already difficult situation significantly worse for people fleeing war, for hosts, for our housing system, and ultimately for all of us in the State.

I spoke on this issue in the House last year when we debated the extension of the scheme and my view has not changed. This is a scheme that actually does work. It is one of the few parts of our response to the war in Ukraine that has genuinely delivered. It is a rarity for me to come into the Chamber and acknowledge a Government scheme that works, but reducing it has the potential to have an impact that goes very significantly towards creating further hardships for people. Since it was introduced, it has accommodated more than 66,500 people fleeing the war in Ukraine. Today, over 41,000 people are living in more than 23,000 homes supported by this payment. Almost half of those living in Ireland under temporary protection are accommodated through this scheme. That is not a small programme. It is one of the central pillars of Ireland's humanitarian response.

Only a few months ago, I hosted a briefing with the Irish Red Cross and I heard directly from people who have built lives here through hosted accommodation. People who had fled war arrived carrying trauma and they slowly managed to rebuild some sense of normality. I remember one mother telling us that her daughter had arrived here as a toddler and she was now settled in school. She speaks with a little Dublin accent. That is no small thing, because that is what integration looks like. It is homes, communities, friendships and kids speaking with little Dublin accents.

Hosted accommodation gives people something emergency accommodation never can. It gives people stability, continuity and dignity. It also makes financial sense. Hosted accommodation is dramatically cheaper than State-provided accommodation. The Irish Red Cross estimates that this scheme costs the State around €11 per person per night, compared with approximately €48 per night for full-board State accommodation or otherwise in private accommodation. That is not only the more humane option, but also the more cost-effective one, yet today we are debating a proposal that risks pulling the rug from underneath thousands of those families.

The Irish Red Cross could not be clearer. It says that reducing this payment is likely to lead to a significant reduction in the number of people willing to continue hosting. In fact, since the Government made this cut, the Red Cross said it had already seen an increase in hosting arrangements coming to an end. This is not theoretical any more. The Irish Red Cross also warns that 86% of hosts say that this payment is important for them to continue their hosting arrangements. If those arrangements collapse, we are potentially talking about 35,000 people looking for somewhere else to live, but any number of them is going to create strain on the system.

We know what will happen next. People do not suddenly find affordable rental homes. They do not suddenly qualify for HAP. They do not suddenly move into social housing. They enter into an accommodation system that is already buckling under the weight of unprecedented demand. A simple question should be asked. Where exactly are those 35,000 people supposed to go? The alternatives very clearly do not exist. People under temporary protection cannot simply access HAP or homeless services in a way that many people assume. Rent supplement remains extremely restrictive. The Irish Red Cross found that only 16% of those who applied for rent supplement were successful and only 20% of people who tried to access the private rental market managed to do so. They are astonishingly low figures, but they tell us something very important: that this is not a transition plan or a displacement plan. The Government cannot reduce one of the only accommodation schemes that is working while pretending that realistic alternatives already exist.

This is a scheme that works. This is a scheme that has people in homes. One of the reasons I will continue to support this scheme is because I do not like to be hypocritical in how I present myself when I come into Dáil Éireann. This is a scheme that has, at different times, paid €800, then €600 and now, potentially, €400 to people in homes. I have often come in here and lambasted the fact that we monetise poverty and oppression too often in this State. We transfer a huge amount of money to private operators who open up accommodation in office blocks or elsewhere for people in emergency situations. That is not a scenario I want. I believe there has to be a transition plan but I do not believe I can come in here and advocate against this without presenting what I would do differently. This system works. The only analysis we can rely on is from the Irish Red Cross, which has surveyed host families and people who avail of the accommodation recognition payment, and it has found that it works. It works in the communities in which people are placed. It would be grossly hypocritical for me to come in here and present an argument that was not based on available data, albeit from the Irish Red Cross, in the absence of any from the Minister. To end this scheme now risks placing huge strain on an already overstretched emergency accommodation system, the homeless system and a rental market that is in chaos. All of these things are potentially what awaits us here because of the reduction in this payment. We understand the cost of living. People in this country are struggling to pay their ESB bills and to put food on the table. To reduce that fee by another €200 means we are simply expecting people to continue having people from Ukraine living in their homes. That is an expectation that is going to be too heavy for many. What we are doing here is reckless. I will be voting against the motion.

This is kind of like a repeat speech from when we previously discussed this issue. The motion is erroneous and mean spirited. The real question for the country is where these people are going to go. The options are not there. It would be one thing to say we would do this if the options were there but we are going to be throwing tens of thousands of people into a situation where there are very few options. In many cases, there will be no options. As we all know, the private rental market is a mess. It is not going to be feasible or possible for these people to be accommodated in it.

We will obviously be voting against the motion as well as the amendment that has been put down. The temporary protection orders have worked. The only data that we have available, as has previously been said, is from the Irish Red Cross. It shows that they have worked. I do not see why, in the spirit of where we are and after everything we have said about the war in Ukraine, we are actually going to go and take this away now. It is downright hypocritical to do this on the one hand and, on the other, to embrace the Ukrainian President and speak in the manner in which we do. Why are we making this change for something that is pretty low - €600? Why are we deciding that we want to get rid of this and phase it out? We are a non-militarily aligned country. We are a country that does not participate in wars. We are neutral, but we are not neutral when it comes to our views on this war. We have also said quite clearly that we would support the Ukrainian people. In that capacity, surely this is the manner in which we should do it.

We need to embrace the fact that many Ukrainians are participating in Irish life and contributing so much here in Ireland in many various ways - economically, socially, educationally, etc. From the perspective of it being the right thing to do, phasing this out now and doing it in this manner is quite mean spirited. It lacks consistency in terms of what the Government is saying about the war in Ukraine. It certainly goes against all available data that we have at this moment in time.

I oppose this new cut to the accommodation recognition payment. This is the second cut to the payment, which was previously cut from €800 to €600, and now the Government wants to cut it further to €400. The Irish Red Cross has written to all of us outlining the devastating impact this cut will have not only on the 41,072 people who rely on it to keep a roof over their heads but, potentially, on the wider migration and accommodation systems in this country. Already since the Government announced its intention to cut the ARP, an increasing number of hosting arrangements are ending. A Red Cross survey of hosts found that the current rate of €600 was important for 86% of them to continue hosting. If even a fraction of that 86% stop hosting because they simply cannot afford it any more, what will it mean? It will mean thousands or tens of thousands of newly homeless people, overwhelmingly women, children and families. These people will not have the right to emergency accommodation. Very many of them will have no choice but to go on the streets. This will be the consequence of the decision. Is this what the Government wants? Is it what Sinn Féin wants? Sinn Féin's contribution to this debate, not just today but every time we have discussed it, has simply been to say to go after the Ukrainians harder and make it even more difficult for them to access accommodation than the Government wants to make it.

Sinn Féin's amendment also manufactures a non-existing conflict between the ARP and the rent-a-room scheme by saying that ARP hosts must not have availed of the scheme in the past two years. A landlord can earn €1,166 a month tax free under the rent-a-room scheme compared to €600 now and €400 in the future through the ARP. Nobody who is solely motivated by money would choose the ARP over the rent-a-room scheme. It is not competing with the private rental market. The vast majority of hosts are hosting people in their own homes out of humanitarian concern and humanitarian motivation. With this cut, many of them simply will not be able to do it any more.

The only other option open to many Ukrainians forced out of their homes as a result of this cut will be to apply for international protection. What happens if tens of thousands of people do this? The system will become even more overwhelmed. That is what happened in France when over 11,000 applications for international protection were made by Ukrainians last year. Is this what the Government wants? Is this what Sinn Féin wants? They might not but they seem prepared to take the risk that this is what is going to happen for the perceived political gain of being seen to be hard on immigration and hard on Ukrainians in particular.

It is a glaring contradiction for the Government in particular, with it hosting President Zelenskyy in Dublin, talking about doing everything we can for the Ukrainian people and praising them on the one hand and, on the other, turfing tens of thousands of Ukrainians out onto the streets. The temporary protection transition scheme, due to open for applications in September, is to be limited to households earning at least €29,432 a year that somehow manage to pay for accommodation privately out of this. ARP recipients are not eligible. With average rents at €21,060 a year, this would be some achievement when the median wage of Ukrainian workers according to the Central Statistics Office, CSO, is less than €30,000.

Our relationship with Ukraine is becoming increasingly hot and cold. Government spokespeople continue the line about the country standing resolutely behind Ukraine, yet it looks like we are selling alumina to the Russian war machine. During his recent visit, I was worried that certain Ministers had been physically attached to President Zelenskyy, they were standing so close to him in the pictures, yet we are offering Ukraine our best broken-down armoured cars. Now we have a situation whereby we are systematically cutting the supports for Ukrainian civilians living here.

This is not to say our level of support should not taper. There is a case for tapering but my concern is about making the changes to the accommodation recognition payment to make it less attractive while at the same time ending the remaining State-provided hotel accommodation. We have the cumulation of these two changes at a time when we know there are already wide pressures across the private rental accommodation. It is this combination I am particularly concerned about.

We know that the ARP works. It supports 41,000 of the Ukrainians living in our country, which is about 50% of them. It works with regard to the central goal of providing accommodation to those who need it. It works by providing this accommodation at a far more reasonable price. It is about €11 per night for a Ukrainian supported using the ARP versus €48 for those using full State accommodation. It is also effective in promoting integration. The whole idea of the hosting model has enabled Ukrainians living with Irish families to get a better sense of Ireland and be better linked to education, job opportunities, community and sport. It has, as Deputy Murphy has said, kept Ukrainians out of the international protection system. I have argued throughout the time Ukrainians have been here that it would be a huge mistake to direct Ukrainians to the international protection system, which we all know is already under huge strain, because it could not cope with the numbers that would be affected. There is national support for the ARP. The most recent polling done earlier this year showed 68% or 67% of Irish people still agreed with supporting Ukrainians through it.

There is another point that we should bear in mind when we listen to the media. We know that this is an ongoing war and in recent months it has appeared in some elements that Ukraine is doing better, but Ukraine is still a dangerous place for civilians. About 250 civilians were killed in the month of April, with more than 1,000 injured. Ukraine is still a dangerous place and it is not easy for people to bring themselves, vulnerable family members and children back to what is still a war zone. For this reason, at a time when we have a system that works and we are cutting away another part of our State support through direct State accommodation, it is wrong to bring this proposal forward and I will oppose it on behalf of the Green Party.

The Irish people are a generous and decent people and have been over the past number of years, with the provision of supports to people from Ukraine who are fleeing the war. This is right and just. The war unleashed on Ukraine is absolutely wrong.

Aontú will support the reduction in the rate of payment under the scheme. The scheme that was created was uneven, unfair and discriminatory for those seeking accommodation or housing. It created a two-tier support system, which is unfair. This two-tier support system has threatened cohesion. It has caused anger and pushback among the general public.

There have been reports of Facebook pages where Ukrainian nationals have posted messages looking for homes where they say they can afford the rent and they can pay an additional tax-free €600 on top of what the asking price is. Landlords are rational and they will make economic decisions to best suit themselves. Landlords have been more inclined to take on Ukrainian tenants over Irish tenants in recent years. This system is discriminatory. It gives an advantage to guests in the country over the people who have lived here for most of their lives.

The fact that this is not being means tested is extraordinary. That we can have two people living on the same street and on the same wages but one of them is getting a further subsidy from the Government is shocking. The fact that many in this Chamber do not understand this is also shocking. We can have a Ukrainian family on a six-figure salary who can get the subsidy and a neighbour on a five-figure salary who cannot. I am very disappointed to see that the Government, the Social Democrats, the Labour Party, the Green Party and People Before Profit will vote against an amendment that wants to means test the payment, as an amendment also did on the previous occasion, and put it on a level footing with other housing assistance payments.

Most parties will also vote against the proposal to protect rent-a-room tenants from eviction. It has been reported again that some landlords who wanted to take rent from the ARP scheme made way for that scheme by removing certain tenants in the rent-a-room scheme, which was also wrong. There is a disconnect in the Chamber among some of the parties in relation to these supports.

The housing crisis is the Government’s fault. The lack of supply is the Government’s fault. Anyone who sat the leaving certificate economics paper just a few weeks ago will know that demand also has a role. It determines what rents are, the price of houses, etc. It is physics and maths and not ideology. We need to get to a situation where we equalise supply with demand. This means the Government building more homes but it also means making sure demand is not too much. To make sure we do not have a pull factor, it is important the services and the provision in this country are equal to those in other European countries, so there is fair distribution of people from Ukraine who need help.

We took in the Ukrainians as part of a Europe-wide collective effort. We might have been perceived as being more generous than some countries precisely because of our military neutrality. We are not giving weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia, so we did have to go above and beyond. I think that is only right and fair.

A lot of the Ukrainians who have come here have settled. Some of them have got jobs. I do take the point about means-testing in terms of increased contributions within the confines of the ARP payment, for example. There was the original €800. If people have a job and can contribute €200, I think it makes a lot of sense. I do not think cutting it, however, sends out the right message. On the one hand, we are inviting President Zelenskyy to Ireland for the European Presidency, with all the pomp and ceremony, and then we are trying to keep Aughinish Alumina on the sidelines. We are saying slava Ukraini and then basically treating them like dirt. We have an obligation and responsibility to help people, so let us live up to that. I do not think this motion is dealing with the particular circumstances. Ukraine is the first step. The next step will be the Baltics, and the step after that will be Poland. We have to show solidarity in that specific geographic context.

I also mention a separate issue in my constituency. A lot of Ukrainians were staying at the Citywest location. A good portion of these people have disabilities. It now seems they are being sent to the four corners of Ireland. This is in a context where kids have been going to the local schools, people have built up links with local communities, learned the language and are making a contribution. I want to read some excerpts from a letter written by the Ukrainians in Citywest. It stated:

Many Ukrainian people in Ireland are now facing a new and deeply worrying stage in their lives. After fleeing war, rebuilding their lives from nothing, finding work, placing children in schools, accessing medical care, and becoming part of local communities, they are now being told that State-provided accommodation is changing.

This issue is not simply about hotels or accommodation centres. It is about whether people who have already integrated into Irish society will be allowed to keep the stability they have worked so hard to build.

Many Ukrainians in Ireland are working, paying taxes, studying, raising children, supporting family members with disabilities, using local services and contributing to Irish society. For these families, [forced] relocation to another county is not just a change of address. It can mean losing access to work, schools, colleges, doctors, disability services, transport links and community support.

The letter continued:

We are not asking for indefinite hotel accommodation. We are asking for a fair, humane, disability-sensitive and employment-sensitive transition.

The current approach risks causing disproportionate harm to working people, families with children in education, people with autism, PTSD, anxiety, disabilities or complex medical needs, and vulnerable adults already connected with HSE and disability services.

For a disability [related] person, shared toilets, shared corridors, noisy communal spaces and high-density accommodation are not minor inconveniences. They are ... real barriers to basic daily life, [like] using the toilet, washing, eating, sleeping, leaving the room, attending appointments or going to work or college.

The letter also stated that, "Any relocation decision must therefore include an individual assessment of disability-related needs, employment, education, transport, medical care and service continuity." We bring people in and then we put them in a difficult position. This is not the right way to go about it. We could ask the average Ukrainian about this. I met a Ukrainian citizen who moved to Adamstown some years before the war. Some Ukrainians have been living and working in Ireland. The vast majority, however, did not ask to come here. They did not ask to have to stay here so long. We do have this attitude that Ukrainians are basically skiving when they could go back to their own big country. This is what is on social media. Ukraine, however, has a war effort it is trying to sustain, and we need to show solidarity and continue to try to help them as best we can.

I thank colleagues for their contributions. What is apparent from them is that there is a divergence of opinion not just between the Government and the Opposition but throughout the House when it comes to how we respond to this issue. In a way, I think this reflects the complexity of the issue. It is sometimes healthy that there are diverging views around this House and issues are not just presented in a binary way.

There are, however, two points on which I think there is general agreement in this House. The first is that the Irish people have been very generous in their response to the plight faced by Ukrainian people since the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022. One of the obligations under the temporary protection directive is that we provide access to the means of accommodation. There was no requirement on Ireland to provide accommodation for people who came to Ireland claiming temporary protection. We decided, however, that we would go beyond what was set out in the temporary protection directive and that we would, in fact, pay for and provide accommodation for people arriving from Ukraine after 2022. I think that was a very generous step to be taken by the Government on behalf of the Irish people. Everybody in this House agreed in respect of that decision.

I also think, however, that we need to be aware that the cost of doing this is very significant. If we look back to 2024, for instance, the cost to the State of temporary protection accommodation was in the region of €1.16 billion. That was just in one year, in 2024. If we look at the accommodation recognition payment that we are debating here, since that was introduced back in June 2022 and up to June 2026, a period of four years, the cost of this has been €496 million, which is €0.5 billion. The point I am making is that the response of the Irish people has been very generous. I think there is agreement on this point.

The second thing I suspect there will be agreement on in this House is that I certainly did not expect in February 2022 - maybe other people here did have the foresight to realise this - that the war would be ongoing four and a half years later. It is very significant in terms of the fact that temporary protection was introduced later in 2022 and it is still ongoing. There is a debate in Europe now as to what will happen in respect of temporary protection. I do think, however, that the length of the war has had an impact. It must have an impact in terms of Government policy. I thank Deputy Gannon for recognising the effectiveness of the Government.

The ARP introduced has been a very effective measure. The last time we debated this topic, there were concerns here regarding moving it from €800 to €600 and that this change was going to significantly undermine it. I do not believe it has. I think it has continued effectively. What we are doing now is reducing it back to the originally intended €400, with notice that come next year, it will be removed completely.

It is important to note that many of the people availing of the ARP are diligent people who are able to work and who are working. They also have very good relationships with the persons providing the accommodation. All those factors together indicate to me that there will be mechanisms for people either to stay in that accommodation with their own private arrangement or to secure accommodation elsewhere. The question that has been put out there is where they are going to get accommodation. It is instructive to note that a lot of people are still coming into Ireland each month under the temporary protection directive. They apply for temporary protection but many of them do not look for accommodation because they have a network here that enables them to receive accommodation.

I will turn to Deputy Carthy’s amendment, which I cannot accept. His amendment, in short, is about the need to introduce means testing. This is a payment, as I said, made to the owner of the property. It is not a payment made to the Ukrainian people. It would be highly unorthodox to means-test the person not receiving the payment. As we have also indicated here, the scheme is going to end next year, so we would expend a lot of bureaucratic and administrative time in setting up a means-testing mechanism that is not necessary and would not be of use next year. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment.

Deputy Tóibín spoke about an amendment. I do not know if he has an amendment before the House but if he does, and it is as he indicated, I cannot accept it either. I thank everyone very much.

I welcome our special visitors to the Public Gallery. We are joined by members of the family of the late Jennie Poole, in whose memory this Bill is named: her brother, Jason Poole; her parents, Jackie and Joe; her siblings, David and Clare; and her precious children, Nevaeh and Zack. They are most welcome to sit here for the final stages of Jennie's law. We welcome and thank them.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 to 12, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 24, to delete “convicted on indictment” and substitute “convicted, whether on indictment or summarily,”.

I welcome Jennie's family. It is an honour for us to have you here. My amendment relates to section 1. This amendment is straightforward but important. As drafted, the Bill excludes convictions dealt with summarily in the District Court yet many domestic violence offences, including the offences of coercive control, assault causing harm and breaching a protection order, can be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. Whether a case proceeds in one court or another should not determine whether a victim can benefit from the protections of this register. Women's Aid specifically highlighted this issue during pre-legislative scrutiny. This amendment seeks to address that gap.

I too welcome the family of Jennifer Poole. The Ceann Comhairle has identified them individually. I specifically highlight Jason Poole, who has been steadfast in his support for this legislation. That has been hugely important to me in trying to advance this legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I also acknowledge the role played by all colleagues in this House. We are all aware of the background to Jennie's law and its origins in the brutal and senseless murder of a young woman. That was outlined during yesterday's debate. I really welcome the fact that Deputies from across the political spectrum support and have welcomed this legislation. I recognise that the role of Committee Stage is to allow colleagues to propose amendments they think would improve the legislation. I would not like Jennifer's family to think that what is happening here is in any way unorthodox. It is part of the legislative process. It is important that colleagues put forward proposals to test me and to see whether the legislation can be improved.

We are looking at a group of amendments, Nos. 1 and 9 to 12, inclusive. Deputy Gannon's amendment, No. 1, asks me to include within the legislation a provision applying the legislation not only to convictions on indictment, that is, convictions in cases heard by the Central Criminal Court or the Circuit Criminal Court, but also to summary convictions. On page 5 of the Bill, the Oireachtas has set out a schedule of offences that should trigger the operation of Jennie's law. It obviously applies in cases of murder, manslaughter, rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault. All of these charges can only arise on indictment. Deputy Gannon's amendment has relevance to the proposed section 40A(11)(g) because some of the offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act can be tried summarily. Such offences include those under sections 3, 3A, 5, 10, 13 and 15 of that Act.

Deputy Gannon wants to broaden the ambit of this legislation so that it does not just include convictions on indictment but also includes summary convictions. So that people are aware, summary convictions are convictions of a minor nature that take place in the Circuit Court. With the greatest of respect to Deputy Gannon, I am not going to accept these amendments. The inclusion of summary offences would be problematic. It would lead the District Court, a court of summary jurisdiction, to start delivering judgments in respect of summary convictions that have been put in place. I agree with Deputy Gannon that any form of violence against women or other offence, even if of a minor nature, is a warning signal and something people need to be very concerned about. However, I also have to recognise what I am doing in this legislation and what Jennie's law is about. It represents a new departure insofar as it gives a statutory power to the criminal courts in relation to delivering a judgment to be put on the register. That is not a practice in the courts at present. Sometimes, the sentencing judgment in a sentencing hearing will be printed up by the Central Criminal Court or the Circuit Criminal Court and then made available.

As this is novel legislation, its parameters have been very carefully drawn. It is important for me to be cautious in how I introduce this. Let us see how it develops. It may be the case that I will be back here in a year saying that Deputy Gannon's proposals were a good idea and that the provisions should be extended. I would not rule out expanding the remit of the legislation in the future.

However, I deliberately adopted a measured approach in designing its scope in order to ensure that it can be implemented and can withstand any potential legal challenge. We need to be aware that there will be legal challenges to this because just as there are people who are very strong in supporting this Bill and who want to see it on the Statute Book, there are others who will be vehemently opposed to it, particularly those who are convicted of the offences outlined in the legislation.

Deputy Carthy has a number of amendments in this group by means of which he is seeking to include a section 2 offence, which is a more minor assault offence. I refer to amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive. In amendment No. 10, the Deputy is seeking to include reference to section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act in the context of an offence committed by somebody who contravenes a protection, safety or barring order. I am not going to accept that amendment because I want to start off with convictions on indictment in order that we can bed down the legislation and see how it operates.

Deputy Gannon's amendment No. 12 seeks to include references to section 4 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 and also section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act. For the reasons already outlined, I do not propose to accept the amendment because I want to limit it to what is there at present, namely convictions on indictment, because that is the safest way to start with this legislation. As already stated, however, I am open to looking at this down the road. The great thing about legislation is that once it is put place, we can come back and improve it in the future. When I am starting off with something novel, however, I have to be cautious.

I vehemently support this Bill, but we cannot ignore the fact that, as matters currently stand, there are cases involving coercive control, assault causing harm and breaches of protection orders that can come before the District Court and that can be prosecuted summarily or upon indictment. The despicable people who engage in such behaviour and who are found guilty in an Irish court will not feature on this register. Therefore, when the Minister talks about the safest way of advancing the legislation, I am obliged to ask for whom is it safest? Women's Aid has already told us that this is an omission from the Bill that will create exceptions whereby violent men will be excluded from appearing on registers. It is incumbent upon us to listen to Women's Aid. It would be safer still for the Minister to accept amendment No. 1, which seeks to add the offences to which I refer. In terms of amendment No. 11, which I neglected to speak to earlier, what we are talking about are behaviours such as stalking and harassment. It would be important for those to be included. I again encourage the Minister to accept amendment No.1 in order to include the offences to which I refer.

As I mentioned on Second Stage, I welcome the fact that this Bill has progressed as speedily as it has. I have commended the Minister and his officials on prioritising what is a singular piece of legislation. It is a huge testimony to the family of Jennifer Poole, particularly Jason, because they have convinced the entirety of political opinion in this House of the merits of this measure. That is a phenomenal achievement on their part. I want to say to them that they have done Jennifer proud by being able to do so much.

The Minister mentioned that the great thing about legislation is that once it is introduced, it can be amended at a later stage. However, he will know that the process in this regard is not simple. The key is always that when we have got to the point where legislation with such widespread political support has been introduced, we need to get it right.

Amendments Nos. 9 10 and 12 are in my name. Amendment No. 9 proposes the following:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(ai) section 2, where the offence is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person in an intimate relationship;”.

The reason for this amendment is that there is a genuine concern that the ambit of the legislation is too narrow and will not capture the bulk of domestic violence offences. As has been mentioned, Women's Aid has warned that many domestic violence-related offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act are prosecuted summarily in the District Court and, therefore, would not be captured by the proposed register. We also know that many domestic charges are reduced to lesser offences through plea bargaining. I refer, for example, to a section 3 offence being reduced to a section 2 assault. This was the situation in one very high-profile case recently. Under the Bill, where a section 2 assault is committed against an intimate partner, it would result in that person not being included on the register when, in fact, we know that the offence is, most likely, part of a pattern of domestic violence and abuse. I again appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept the amendment and create an offence under section 2 where a crime is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person living in an intimate relationship in order that we might get to the core of this. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I ask him to provide assurances, insofar as it is possible, that the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, will take into account the fact that any plea bargaining reducing a section 3 charge to a section 2 charge in a case of domestic violence would allow an offender to evade inclusion on the domestic violence register. This should be a caveat for the DPP in his or her consideration of plea bargains that might not have been in place heretofore.

Amendment No. 10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them. For what I consider logical reasons, this should also be added to the list of offences.

Amendment No. 12 states:

In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(j) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”.

This amendment adds a breach of a domestic violence order, as the Minister said, to the list of offences that will lead to people being included on the domestic violence register. This makes absolute sense. It will be a real omission if it is not included, particularly if we genuinely want this to be a domestic violence judgment register. One of the fears relating to this legislation, which has been mentioned here and in the Seanad, is that somebody might seek to look at the register. If somebody is going to look at this register, it means that there are concerns. If they look and see that somebody's name is not on it, that might give them a sense of unfounded relief. The Minister was at pains, and rightly so, to say that this is what it is and that it should not be taken as an absolute guarantee of anything. However, if somebody has been convicted of domestic violence offences, either summarily or in the context of a section 3 conviction, and is not included in the register, then the truth of the matter is that the register is not going to be as fulsome as it should be. This is the crucial point. We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court. The vast majority of cases involving sexual or gender-based violence or domestic abuse will never actually come before a court. When they do, even the most minor of offences are generally just the tip of the iceberg. If somebody is the subject of a summary conviction for domestic violence abuse, in the majority of, not all, cases, that is just a small signal of a pattern of abuse.

Margaret Loftus made this point very passionately when she spoke at the justice committee's launch of the report on gender-based violence last week. She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered. It is usually after a prolonged period of abuse that somebody will get the wherewithal, the courage and the support necessary to bring that to the attention of the Garda. When somebody has managed to get to the point where they are making a complaint to the Garda and if the gardaí looking at the evidence see the merit of bringing a charge against the individual and they bring that to court and it results in a conviction, then absolutely there should be no question but that should be recorded in this register.

I again appeal to the Minister. Let us get this right. Let us not depend on a future Minister or a future Oireachtas to fix this at a later stage. Let us actually ensure that we live up to the spirit of this legislation, which has come about from the campaign and work of Jason and the Poole family, by ensuring it is as comprehensive as possible. I again ask the Minister to consider these amendments even at this late stage.

I echo what the Minister said about the support across the House for the domestic violence register. That is really important because the model that we have landed on has been able to attract support. It is important to say that many people had very significant concerns about the idea of a domestic violence register. In some cases, they were very well-meaning people, including those representing people in domestic violence cases. In other cases, they were people involved in the legal profession and people involved in civil society. I appreciate the unanimity that we have landed on in the House. It took some time to get here. In considering these amendments, it is worth understanding why we have landed on the model that we have.

I take a moment to welcome the Poole family to the Chamber in such large numbers. They are incredibly welcome, particularly Jason who has been the driving force behind this all the way through. When Jason first came to us about this, he always spoke about the most serious crimes. It was important that was the focus of what we were trying to do from the very beginning because, as we know, Jennie was the subject of an offence at the most serious level.

It is important to remember who Jennie was. Jennie was a 24-year-old mother, a wonderful mother to Zach and Nevaeh. She was a healthcare worker in our community. She was a much-loved member of her camogie team in Erin's Isle. In many ways, she represented the very best of our community. We all know what happened on 17 April 2021. I spoke about it yesterday. I certainly do not intend to speak about it today because that man has taken enough from the Poole family without my reliving it here today.

There was so much hurt. The hurt centred on the fact that behind that tragedy, Jennie was not aware that her ex-partner had a previous conviction. Not only was she not aware but she did not even have a mechanism to find out that he had a previous conviction. That tragedy was further compounded because it was not until the court case that Jennie's family realised that conviction was there.

In trying to pursue Jennie's law, as Jason eventually called it, he came to me with a list of ten different areas, some of which the Minister has moved on in terms of access rights for a parent or a partner who's involved in a murder and so on. On this specific issue, the idea of granting access, we always knew there would be problems in establishing a register, similar to the sex offenders register. I acknowledge the work of Senator Fiona O'Loughlin, whose original Bill used that type of model because that is where we first thought we could progress it.

All the other issues around people's privacy and GDPR started to become the blockages as to why this could not be done. I acknowledge that under a different Minister the Department of justice was extremely opposed to this Bill. The replies that come from the Minister, often written by the departmental officials, were extremely opposed to how this Bill could be introduced. The mechanism the Minister has used - it is very simple mechanism - is the reason we have got here. That is why I want to speak to the amendments.

Essentially, the mechanism is that justice should be done in public but because journalists are no longer present in our courts all the time, that can often go unreported. The simplicity of that is that justice should be done in public. As already happens in civil cases, for the very first time the Minister has now found a way for judgments in criminal cases to be reported on the Courts Service website. It has never been done before for other offences. For the first time, that moves us away from all the issues of privacy and it moves us into a very simple sphere that justice should be done in public and, therefore, if a decision of the court is public, it is already a matter of public record and all we are doing is publishing that on the website. When we do that, we are inevitably balancing the independence of the Judiciary. That is why there is some discretion in the legislation because, of course, there is a separation of powers. In striking that balance, the Minister is trying to acknowledge that.

There were also concerns over expanding it beyond the current number of offences, which this group of amendments seeks to do, including murder, manslaughter, rape, strangulation, coercive control and so on. The reason for that was that in some cases those representing victims of domestic violence were fearful that it would put people off seeking a barring order, for example. In the initial stages there was talk about all of that being included in it. The Minister has limited it to the most serious offences, the fatal end of things, for a reason. Some of it is based on the concerns of people who represent people involved in domestic violence.

I just put the details of the process on the record because that is why we landed on this. It is not because we decided to limit certain elements of this. It is because we are juggling that balance between the Judiciary and the powers of this House. For the first time, criminal judgments will be published on a website. It is this model and not the other model of, for example, a sex offender's register which involves a different methodology and process. I say that to the Deputies who tabled these amendments because they might not have been aware of how we landed where we are.

I will not speak again on the other amendments. I acknowledge how far we have come. I acknowledge the Poole family. This law will be transformative in helping people across Ireland who are in a relationship to discover whether their partner had a domestic violence conviction. In her life as a mother, as a care worker and as a club member, Jennie gave so much to the community where she lived. She stood for everything that is so positive about our community. It is fitting that even in the tragedy that she and her family have experienced, she has continued to inspire this House to pass Jennie's law. I commend the Minister on his work and I commend the Bill to the House.

Yesterday I thanked the Minister for using the Seanad route to get this legislation through so it could be passed before the summer recess. That confirms the Minister's own acknowledgement of the urgency of getting this legislation passed.

There is a balance between the urgency of getting something passed, but also the urgency of getting something passed that is going to impact as well as it could. That is why I support amendment No. 1 and the other suite of amendments because we are not going far enough. In essence, we need to challenge and push things out. If something needs to be tweaked afterwards, that is the better option rather than being very conservative starting out. If we look at the District Court situation, for example in terms of summary convictions, we are talking about convictions of up to 12 months. If I was a woman or if it was my daughter or any family member, and I found out that someone had a conviction of up to 12 months for violently assaulting someone, giving them a black eye or damaging their eye socket, I would want to know about it. These types of incidents start very incrementally. They start off with one thing. It gradually escalates. The violence becomes the norm. The coercive control is brought into it. It is not usually a situation where someone starts off in a controlling relationship as the essence of extreme violence. It works up to that situation. Therefore, you do have to nip it in the bud, so to speak. I am not a legal expert on this but I have been raising issues on the related in camera rule and the need to remove it, because that is going to act as a chilling effect on people reporting cases in the first place. However, anything that encourages reporting has to be welcomed. If we look at where violations of court orders happen, they happen in the District Courts above and beyond. Regarding the type of domestic violence incidences, the vast majority of them are within the District Court as well. We can move beyond that and say we will start off with the most serious cases but the most serious cases are arising because people go away with the less serious cases. These are often people with multiple, sometimes different, convictions in multiple relationships. We are talking about individuals whose violence is not confined to a single relationship. They always blame their partner at the time but these are people with a propensity for violence and that violence is acted out not just on partners but on other people in society as well. If it is not dealt with it right from the outset it is going to create more problems.

I see there are some issues in relation to, for example, starting with the District Court cases in that there might be a risk of retaliation because people know their name is going to be listed. I acknowledge this is a risk. We are having a different level of argument about the three-year process and the right to have their name removed from the register; that is a later discussion, and I believe five years would be more sufficient. At any stage, if they behave themselves, people will have their names taken off the register. However, the types of offences that should go onto the register in the first place should be violent assaults such as giving a partner a black eye. To me, that is sufficient to show that person cannot be trusted. If a relationship breaks up and there is a new partner, they have an absolute right to know about that because next time it could be a broken eye socket or the use of a weapon. We have to deal with it there and then rather than let someone get away with it. Another point is that in a lot of the convictions in the court people do not serve anywhere near the actual sentence they are given. They are out and about, with no real consequences and then they feel a sense of impunity. We have to nip it in the bud. There will be a lot of legal opposition to various aspects of this legislation in any event, so let us just throw the whole lot in - unless what the Minister is really saying is that there is resourcing issues in terms of the District Court's capacity. That is a valid concern as well, but at some stage we have to draw the line and say this is the sort of offence that is not acceptable in any civilised society. You are not allowed to violently attack your partner. We can have nuances and definitions but whacking your partner violently to me is the line we draw. If that is in the remit of the District Court, so be it. It needs to be put on the record to protect the partner and to protect future people.

I thank colleagues for their contribution. I believe the legislation I presented is the correct way to go. I know colleagues are well-intentioned in what they are seeking to do but let us recall what was the motivation for this legislation. The motivation was the case of the murder of Jennifer Poole. Had the previous convictions of the person who murdered her been publicly available that would have had an impact upon her. This mechanism, the statutory scheme I am putting in place, would have covered his convictions. His convictions, which were serious convictions, would be covered by this. I do not believe it is appropriate to go down the route of including a whole other variety of convictions from the District Court. If we look at the convictions in this legislation that will trigger the mechanism for disclosure, we see that it includes a vast array of offences. As I said earlier on, obviously it covers murder, manslaughter, rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, but then it also covers non-fatal strangulation causing harm, non-fatal strangulation causing serious harm, assault causing harm, assault causing serious harm, threats to kill, harassment, endangerment, false imprisonment, coercive control and the spreading of intimate images. There is a whole variety of convictions there that will trigger the statutory scheme under this. I want to be respectful to Deputies Gannon and Carthy but if we go down the route of putting in District Court summary convictions this is going to become unmanageable. It is appropriate to leave this on indictable offences, convictions on indictment and then the discretionary mechanism is available to the court. I say with great respect to Deputies Gannon and Carthy that it is not a good idea to include a vast array of offences. It will undermine the effectiveness of the scheme.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 29, after “subsection (4)” to insert “and (4A)”.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are in my own name and I also record my support for amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Gannon. Amendment No. 2 may appear to be technical and inserts “and (4A)” after subsection (4). Amendment No. 4 proposes to insert in page 4, between lines 7 and 8, the following:

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that—

(a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given,

(b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and

(c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”.

To give the logic for these amendments, Safe Ireland has argued for the provisions in amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to be included in this legislation. These amendments are about ensuring victims are properly protected when deciding whether a judgment should be included on the register. We know a conviction does not always bring an end to abuse. Many victims continue to experience intimidation, harassment and coercive control long after court proceedings have been concluded. Therefore, victims should also have the right to withdraw their consent at any point before publication of this register and that decision should be fully respected. The objective is simple. It is to ensure that victims can make fully informed decisions in a way that prioritises their safety and well-being at all times. That is a sentiment that is widely shared. Deputy Gannon's amendment essentially puts in a provision that in the event of somebody being deceased the family should be consulted and I fully support that.

I will equally be supporting Deputy Carthy's amendments. My amendment seeks to recognise that, where a victim has tragically died, he or she can no longer express a view on whether a judgment should appear on the register. The Bill currently leaves that decision entirely to the court. Our amendment simply requires the court, where appropriate, to consult the victim's family before reaching that decision. It does not give families a veto, nor does it remove the court's discretion. It simply ensures that, in these most difficult cases, those closest to the victims have an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.

I thank Deputies Carthy and Gannon for their amendments. Deputy Gannon's amendment seeks to cover a situation where the victim is deceased, so it is either a case of murder or manslaughter. In that instance, the provision as it is at present, in subsection (4), states, "In relation to subsection (2)(d), where the victim is deceased, it shall be at the discretion of the court as to whether a judgment is to be included in the Register." When it comes to a court case where somebody has been convicted of murder or manslaughter, obviously there will be an opportunity for a victim impact statement for the family members. Family will always be able to express their view. However, putting specifically into statute, as Deputy Gannon has suggested, that there has to be consultation with the family of the victim is difficult from the point of view of a court. The court is the one that is exercising its discretion as to whether the judgment should be published. Deputy Gannon's amendment states, "the court shall, after consultation with the family". It is unusual in legislation to talk about a court having consultation with the family. I know the purpose of it but there is a mechanism for the family to be heard. I think it would be inappropriate to include that in the Bill. As well as that, families are not always unified in their approach to a particular issue. We need to be much more specific in respect of what "family" means. Where the family of a deceased victim has views on whether a judgment should be included in the register, attention will of course be paid to those views by the judge, and that is something that the judge will be able to consider.

I now turn to Deputy Carthy's amendments Nos. 2 and 4. These relate to the victim's consent, ensuring that it is freely and voluntarily given. They specify that the court must be satisfied that the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable them to make that decision. I am not going to accept these amendments either. We all agree that specialist domestic violence services are indispensable, and they are available. Colleagues will be aware that I provide a huge amount of funding to Cuan, which in turn provides it to those agencies. It is important to point out that these organisations make a valuable contribution. However, that recognition does not mean that every aspect of their work should be written into legislation. The amendments proposed raise significant practical concerns. It is simply not clear how a court could determine whether a victim had received "sufficient information and access to appropriate supports", nor is there an objective standard for what constitutes informed and safe decision-making. I understand the intentions but I think the language is too vague and subjective and would create uncertainty rather than the clarity that we all want.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, lines 5 to 7, to delete all words from and including “it” in line 5 down to and including line 7 and substitute the following:

“the court shall, after consultation with the family of the victim where appropriate, determine whether a judgment is to be included in the Register.”.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that—

(a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given,

(b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and

(c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, are related, and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 33, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”.

All of these amendments are linked and are the critical amendments that we will be discussing this evening. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are fairly simple in their wording. They are to substitute the words "5 years" where "3 years" is currently in place. Amendment No. 8 inserts the following section 9A on page 5:

Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to—

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and

(b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.".

Amendment No. 8 is the second option for the Minister if he is of a mind to reject amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Bearing in mind that, as a result of the Government's position on the previous amendments, the bar to be included on this register is incredibly high under the Bill as it stands, somebody who is on the register that we are discussing has committed offences of a very serious nature. For all of the reasons I outlined earlier, I believe that the vast majority of abusers will never see their names published on this register. Therefore, to have such a high bar and then to allow a three-year mechanism whereby a person who has reached that bar and ended up on the register can apply to have his or her name removed from it is far too short. When you consider that, to be on the register, the crimes are way beyond what any reasonable person would want any of their loved ones to be exposed to in a relationship, certainly without them knowing.

The key part of this is that being included on the domestic violence register is not actually an additional punishment. We talked about early convictions. If somebody has been convicted of a public order offence at the age of 19, 20, 21 or whatever, depending on the profile of the situation, if he or she happened to be in a local District or Circuit Court and the local newspaper was in place, everybody can find that information out very quickly, because it is going to be googlable forever. There is a right to be forgotten and all of that, but generally speaking, that will be common knowledge forever. It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others. If we agree with that premise, which I think was the central point of the Deputy opposite, Paul McAuliffe, regarding the rationale for the approach that has been taken, then there is no rationale for allowing people to have themselves removed after only three years following a prosecution.

This is the amendment, above all, that I appeal to the Minister to accept because the logic stands. There is an argument that five years is too short, but I table it with regard to the legislation and understanding that this is just an application. Amendment No. 8 is a secondary position that seeks to allow a longer period for removal in some instances. That should be considered with regard to offences at the most serious end of the spectrum, obviously including murder, manslaughter and rape.

People would be surprised to learn - after all the effort that has gone into this and the campaigning by the Poole family with the Minister and his Department - that we would have a situation where there is a register in place, narrow as it is, but after three years, somebody on the register can apply to be taken off it. In my mind, that is far too short. Five years is much more reasonable. Above all, my appeal to the Minister is to accept amendment No. 5.

I thank Deputy Carthy for putting down this amendment. I will start by disagreeing with him, however. I disagree with him when he says that the bar is incredibly high for the triggering of this statutory scheme. That is not correct. If the Deputy looks at the legislation, he will see 17 offences will trigger the scheme. Seventeen pieces of legislation or 17 convictions that will trigger it. These are convictions that are happening in Circuit Criminal Courts, and, to a lesser extent, Central Criminal Courts, on a continuous basis. It is not correct to say that the bar is incredibly high.

The issue here is that if somebody receives one of these convictions, and the scheme is triggered and the judgment is published on the register, if that person gets a term of imprisonment, they cannot apply for it to be removed. The default position is that the judgment stays on the register. There is nothing in the scheme to remove the judgment from the register. The only way that the scheme affects that is that it allows a person, three years after they have been released from prison, to bring an application to have their name removed. That means that they have to go into open court and bring the application. They have to satisfy a judge that it is appropriate that they be removed. It may be the case that the judge will refuse the relief that they are seeking. In order to do that, they will have to set out some convincing evidence to the court that will satisfy it that it believes this person is no longer the threat that resulted in them being put on the register in the first place.

What Deputy Carthy's amendment proposes is that we say that they cannot bring the application until five years. In practical terms, the court will have to be satisfied in any event, based on evidence that is put before it, that the person is no longer a threat. I know it is not something we are discussing here, and others mentioned this when legislation was mooted, but I have to give consideration to the possibility of rehabilitation. I know that is not something that is relevant in very many cases but I have to give consideration, as Minister, to the possibility of rehabilitation. I have to have regard for proportionality in the context of this Bill. This is new legislation. I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register. It allows that to be done either three years after he is released from prison or, if he is not imprisoned, three years after the conviction.

To be absolutely clear, the expiry of the three-year period does not entitle a person to get off the register. Most people will stay on this indefinitely. The only time a person can get off it is if they bring an application which is successful. What happens at present is that I am allowing them, after three years, to make an application. The final decision, and the responsibility for ensuring it is the right one, rests with the court.

I will make a couple of ripostes. In terms of the bar being set high and the logic behind using that phrase, I am sure the Minister will accept, and he probably knows this better than anybody in the Chamber, that it is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of cases of abuse are never reported. That has been well-documented. The vast majority of reported abuses never result in court cases at all. The majority that result in court cases do not subsequently result in a conviction for one of the 17 offences the Minister has outlined. When I say that the bar is high, it is not to suggest that it is incredibly narrow but it is a high bar. I hope the Minister will take that on board.

In respect of the point around rehabilitation, the aforementioned young fella or young woman who had a public order offence and happened to end up in a court when their local journalist was in attendance are statistically much more likely to have rehabilitated themselves than someone who has committed a sexual offence but they are in the local paper. It is published. They can do nothing about it. That is just the outworkings of justice happening publicly. I understand the Minister's rationale for saying that there has to be a point of appeal or a legal mechanism by which somebody can ask for their name to be withdrawn. I have very little sympathy for them, to be quite frank, and I hope that any court in which such an application comes before it will have very little sympathy but the point is around when that avenue should become available. Three years after such a conviction is far too short. From speaking to campaigners on this issue, this is a position that is held. That is why I would make the argument strongly that five years - arguably too short in itself - is much more reasonable.

I had not intended to speak but I fully support Deputy Carthy's amendment. When the Minister mentioned the possibility of rehabilitation, it raised my antennae because I am somebody who fundamentally believes in rehabilitation. We talk about it in this House all the time. I do not believe going onto this register is the punishment. Going onto this register is to send a warning to any potential partner in the future, which is why the rehabilitation of the perpetrator is not to the fore of my concerns here at all. In fact, more to the point, a person who is seeking to remove themselves after three years and potentially not having a conversation about such horrific past behaviour seems like an attempt to deceive. I think three years is far too short. I do not think rehabilitation comes into this register. It is a completely separate issue and is an allowance for future deception. Five years is too short, to be honest, but three years certainly is.

I agree with my colleagues. I believe five years is to short, to be honest. I find that no argument has been made for the three years at all. It seems incredibly short. The idea that a person who commits such an offence can apply for this after three years does not sit well with me. I do not think would sit well with the majority of Members in this House. I note the Minister's choice of words regarding rehabilitation. I understand where he is coming from in relation to his position as the Minister for justice but it is a separate discussion. It is not relatable to the time period of three years in any way, shape or form. In this spirit of collegiality, the Minister should consider this amendment and accept it. I know it is very unusual and it would not change anything substantive but it would be a longer timeframe, which would certainly be far more palatable to us all.

I welcome the clarification that it is three years after the sentence has been served. If someone has served a seven- or eight-year sentence under one of the 17 offences, they would not be able to apply for the removal until they get to year ten or 11. I welcome that clarification. The idea that someone comes off three years after the conviction is not the case; it is three years after the sentence has concluded. It is interesting that the Minister used the word "rehabilitation" and that it struck a chord in this House because, if I recall, that was the wording used during pre-legislative scrutiny by the Law Society. That gives us an insight into how a court might assess this legislation if it comes before it.

The Law Society's argument in that discussion was that the sentence was the punishment and that an additional burden being put on the person who had committed the offence could be seen by a court as being unreasonable.

I am with members of the Opposition here. Whether it is ten, 15 or 20 years, I have no problem with the time but what I am concerned about is that, were the Minister to extend it now, we could find ourselves in 18 months' time having no Jennie’s law at all. A court could strike out this law because it did not have regard to a principle that nobody in this House might have sympathy for but that the court assessing the law inevitably would, namely, the balancing of the two rights. Having fought for so long to have this law in place in respect of the 17 offences we are speaking about, we could end up not having it at all. If there is room for it to be extended, I would not oppose that but I want to be very careful that we have something robust that stands up so that we do not end up with no register at all.

I thank colleagues for their contributions. As Deputies know, I have no difficulty accepting amendments from colleagues in this House if I believe they are correct and beneficial to the legislation. I have done it before and will do it again. I hear what Deputy Kelly says but collegiality does not come into it. We can be very collegial but when it comes to legislation, I cannot just decide that I want to be friendly with people in the House and, so, I will accept the amendment.

That is not what I meant, to be fair.

I know, but collegiality is not a reason to accept an amendment.

I understand that but that is not what I meant.

Deputy McAuliffe mentioned something. There was a difficult passage between me getting into office and me introducing this legislation into the Houses of the Oireachtas-----

I appreciate that.

-----and it involved getting a lot of different views and advices. I remember a lot of coverage a year ago where lots of groups were opposed to this and it was all about the issues that could arise in respect of it. I have managed to get a balancing area - a landing area - that has the support of the House, which is the most significant thing, and has also enabled me to get advice from the Attorney General telling me that we can proceed with this. As Deputy McAuliffe mentioned a few moments ago, what I do not want to do is find that, when a judge is deciding whether to add somebody’s judgment to the register, they say that the person will not be able to bring an application for five years after their conviction or after they are released. It is a question of balancing it. The most important thing is for us to get this up and running and it to be effective. As Deputy McAuliffe said, it would reduce its effectiveness if it was the case that it was moved out to five years after release from prison. You could have been in prison for ten years and then you would have to wait for five years.

On Deputy Gannon’s comments, the point I was making about rehabilitation was that going on the register was obviously not a form of punishment, but we have to recognise that an individual may be reformed and may have changed from the person they were when they committed the offence that led to them being put on the register. If a court was satisfied that the person had gone through treatment and reformed themselves - maybe there were major addiction issues or other issues in their lives that they had overcome and there was evidence to a court to suggest that the threat that had been there when they were put on the register was no longer there – that is a factor that I have to give some recognition to - not a huge amount, but some. It is important in terms of balancing the conflicting interests in the legislation.

For the information of Members, the Poole family are in the Public Gallery. The Ceann Comhairle has already extended a welcome to the family, but I want to bring it to the attention of the Chamber, now that there are so many of us here, that they are here. They have achieved a lot. I acknowledge their presence. Thank you for your patience as you watch the debate.

Seanad Éireann has passed the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 without amendment.

I extend a welcome to former councillor Walter Lacey who is in the Public Gallery with visitors, friends and family. They are welcome to Leinster House and I hope they enjoy their evening.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, line 37, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, line 3, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“(9A) Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to—

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and

(b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.”.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(ai) section 2, where the offence is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person in an intimate relationship;”.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(j) an offence under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 (harassment and stalking);

(k) an offence under section 4 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020;

(l) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(j) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(c) is a dependant, including a child, of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).”.

This amendment recognises a simple reality. Domestic abuse often extends beyond an intimate partner to children and other dependants. As drafted, the Bill only protects victims who are the spouse, former spouse or intimate partner of the offender. Women's Aid identified this as a significant gap during pre-legislative scrutiny, noting that convictions for serious offences against a partner's child could fall outside of the register. This amendment addresses that omission by ensuring dependants, including children, are also covered. It better reflects the reality of domestic abuse and strengthens the protection purposes of the register.

I thank the Deputy for his amendment. The legislation we are discussing today is proposing to insert a new section into the Domestic Violence Act 2018. This will be the section referred to as the domestic violence register of judgments. That means this part of the legislation has to be consistent with the Domestic Violence Act 2018 in general. That Act already refers to relevant persons in the offence of coercive control and in specifying the circumstances in which a relationship should be treated as an aggravating factor in offending. In both cases, the Oireachtas deliberately confined the definition to a current or former spouse or intimate partner. I have deliberately adopted this language in the provisions in this part of the legislation in order to ensure consistency within the legislation as this definition is now being embedded in case law, operational guidance and front-line practice. If I were to accept Deputy Gannon's amendment, which would introduce a broader definition into the Bill, it would undermine the coherence of existing provisions. It would mean that the same term appearing within the same legislative framework would carry two different meanings in two different areas. That is not good practice and would risk confusion. That is why I think it important that we maintain a single, stable definition of relevant person across the Domestic Violence Act and legislation. I know Deputy Gannon's concern is in respect of children of people who are victims of domestic violence. However, for the purpose of the operation of the 2018 Act as a whole and for this new provision, it is important to limit it as we have in the legislation, which is to intimate partner, spouse or civil partner.

I disagree with the Minister completely. I think perpetrators of domestic violence are callous. If someone seriously assaults or abuses their partner's child, that behaviour is highly relevant to whether future partners should know about their history. Without this amendment, those convictions could fall outside the register simply because the victim was a child rather than an adult partner. The Minister is obviously not going to accept the amendment, but his is a flawed approach because I think this information is highly relevant to the type of register we are talking about here.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(14) The Minister shall, not later than 3 years after the commencement of this section, conduct a review of the operation of the Register and lay a report of that review before each House of the Oireachtas, including anonymised information on the operation of the Register, applications for removal and the offences recorded.”.”.

This amendment would introduce a statutory review of the register after three years. The domestic violence judgments register will be a new scheme. It is only right that the Oireachtas should have the opportunity to assess whether it is working as intended. I am looking for a review after three years.

There will be a post-enactment review after one year under Dáil Standing Orders and the Standing Orders of the Seanad. That will be done. I am conscious people will be raising the issue here with me. I will not accept the amendment but there will be a requirement for me to come back to produce a post-enactment report within 12 months.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(14) The Courts Service shall ensure that, when the Register is made available to the public—

(a) a statement is included to the effect that the absence of a person’s name from the Register does not indicate that such person does not pose a risk or has not previously engaged in domestic violence or abuse, and

(b) information is provided directing users to appropriate support services, including national and local domestic violence support services.”.”.

This is to ensure that the register is accompanied by clear safeguards to ensure, as has been discussed by a number of Members from across the House, that those who consult the register do not consider absence from the register as meaning an absence of risk. It is also to ensure that the register does not have the effect of giving people who may be at risk a false sense of safety. It is safe to assume that most people who are consulting this register will have a concern for their well-being or somebody else's. Regardless of whether this amendment becomes standard practice or not, I hope it will be a standard practice that when the register is consulted, clear guidance toward support services will be provided. We have a lot of organisations that do incredible work with victims of domestic violence. They are overwhelmed and need more resources, but they want to help people who need help. In some instances, the number of people who do not know the level of support available to them is phenomenal. This would be an appropriate avenue to which to direct people who might benefit from such support services.

Deputy Carthy makes a very important point. It is important that people do not assume that someone has no domestic violence convictions simply because their name does not appear on the register of judgments. That is a point that has to be emphasised.

While I cannot accept the amendment, this is because the level of operational detail proposed is not suitable for primary legislation. Embedding such granular requirements in statute could actually limit flexibility and create unnecessary constraints as the system develops. However, in this context, in light of Deputy Carthy's amendment and other concerns, officials in my Department and the Courts Service have already discussed the provision of warnings, explanatory notes and clear signposting to domestic violence support services. I assure Deputies that this information will be prominently displayed for anyone accessing the register. The effect of what Deputy Carthy seeks to do will be embedded in the register when it is up and running in the Courts Service.

Is Deputy Carthy pressing the amendment?

I welcome that statement from the Minister and on that basis I will withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(14) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the court shall have regard to—

(a) the safety and wellbeing of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm, and

(b) the safety and welfare of any children or dependents connected to the victim or the convicted person.”.”.

Again, this is just to insert subsection (14) in page 6. It provides that in deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the court shall have regard to the safety and well-being of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm, as well as the safety and welfare of any children or dependants connected to the victim or the convicted person. The amendment simply seeks to place victim safety at the heart of the court's decision-making, requiring consideration of any risk of intimidation or further harm, as well as the welfare of the affected children and dependants to be at the heart of it. It is certainly at the heart of the rationale for this legislation. I just want to suggest that it be included.

Again, it is an important point that Deputy Carthy makes but it is also important to note that the court will have discretion to decide whether a judgment should be included in the register. Those factors that are set out in Deputy Carthy's amendment will certainly be given consideration by a judge in exercising that discretion. Any judge exercising that discretion will access all of the circumstances of the case, including the situation of the offender, the victim and any child connected to the matter. Issues of safety and welfare will be central to that assessment. Domestic violence cases often involve ongoing risks and complex dynamics. The court's responsibility is to ensure that victims and children are protected from further harm. In fairness, judges do this on a daily basis. They routinely evaluate risks and the courts are aware of the sensitivities involved in domestic violence cases. The judicial studies committee delivers specialised workshops on topics such as this in order to train judges on how they should exercise their discretion. For these reasons, notwithstanding the point it makes, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad. I thank colleagues in this House for their support on this legislation. I thank officials in my Department for their tireless work in respect of ensuring that we navigate this legislation through the Houses and get the drafts as appropriately as possible to ensure that they balance all the conflicting rights we have spoken about. I thank Jason Poole and the Poole family and commend them on their resilience and determination in wanting to leave a permanent memorial to their beloved Jennie. That memorial is very evident in this legislation, which will be on our Statute Book for very many years. I commend them on and thank them for their great public service in advocating for this law.

Hear, hear.

Hear, hear.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.

The fifth amendment was, again, a technical amendment ensuring that we apply the provisions of the 1991 Act relating to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to proceedings heard under the new Part. The only substantive change was that the new drafting ensured that the guardian ad litem can be reappointed both where there is a review of an order, as set out in the order itself, and where a review of the order takes place under the proposed new section 12E. This amendment applies the rules of that service to the new proceedings and makes clear how they work in this context.

There are a number of amendments coming from the Seanad and I do not oppose any of them. I seek your indulgence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to make a number of points at this stage rather than going back and forth. As I outlined on different Stages of the Bill, we fully support the legislation to restrict guardianship rights in a situation where a person has murdered a child's other guardian. I again commend David French, the brother of Valerie, who this law will be named after, on everything he has done to ensure that this legislation is enacted to protect the best interests of children. The interests of children have been paramount to David and his family. This is particularly important when one parent has been killed by another parent. The insights David French gave to the justice committee were invaluable, in particular during the pre-legislative scrutiny process on this legislation and the impact it would have had on his family and the welfare of his nephews if it had been in place previously.

David shone a light on the reality of what many families face following a killing where children are involved. I know this has been a long and difficult campaign for him and his family. During previous debates on the Bill, the Minister said that such cases are, fortunately, not too common. The truth is, as we have seen with recent violent deaths of women, that they might not be too common but, on the other hand, there are too many of them. The number of women killed in violent circumstances this year has to be a matter of huge concern for these Houses.

I had hoped that the Minister would have accepted some of our amendments, particularly in respect of the application by Tusla to the court for every case following a conviction. A conviction for the murder or manslaughter of a co-guardian should be sufficient grounds for a review, ensuring consistency and prioritising the child's welfare. I had also tabled an amendment to ensure the family of the guardian who has been killed was made a notice party in these proceedings. They should have a clear right, considering their legitimate interest and the child's welfare. This role should be recognised, respected and reflected in the process.

I hope I am proved wrong, but I reiterate that I have concerns regarding the discretion being given to Tusla in dealing with convictions that will happen before the legislation is commenced. We have missed a trick in terms of ensuring that other parties would be able to have their voices heard in these instances.

Many people were astounded to discover that somebody, in most instances it will be a man, who has killed the mother of his children automatically retains guardianship rights. It is quite mind-boggling that this has been the case for so long. The truth of the matter is that it would have remained the case were it not for David French and the campaign he undertook when dealing with what must be unbelievable and unimaginable grief and trauma having lost a loved one in such violent circumstances. The work he has done is a huge credit to him. We have also just seen this with the Poole family and so many other families. In both instances, children were left behind. The families still found within themselves the strength and courage to invest their time in changing the law, not necessarily for their own benefit but for the benefit of others who might be in that position. We are so fortunate as a country that we produce people like this.

We are fortunate that we have a democratic system in which families in this situation can have access to their elected representatives and, ultimately, the Minister. We can then see legislative change being brought forward. It takes longer than we would like but it happens much quicker than it would in other jurisdictions where the same accessibility to the democratic process is not there. We have many what I consider to be bad days in this House, but, for all of the reasons I have outlined reasons, today is a good day. Certainly, when the Bill is finally passed, it will be a good day for Irish democracy and, hopefully, another small step in terms of the measures being taken to protect those families who have lost loved ones through violent deaths and the ongoing work being done to address the scourge of domestic, gender-based and sexual violence, especially against women.

Seanad amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

The policy intention behind the new section 12G is that the proceedings to which it refers will be heard primarily in the District Court. When the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act 2024 are commenced, these proceedings will be heard in the family district court. The intention is the same as in the Bill as initiated, but I am advised that this form of words will better accomplish the goal.

I recognise the presence of David French and of Valerie French's family. I commend and thank them and acknowledge the enormous work they did in campaigning for this. This change to the law was recommended in a report on familicide back in 2023. David French absorbed it, ran with it and campaigned for it. I met him in a television studio in January 2025. I gave him a commitment that I would seek to change the law through the Houses of the Oireachtas and now this is done. I commend him and the family of Valerie French for their fortitude and commitment to public service by seeking this change in the law.

That is well endorsed. I thank the Minister.

Before we start, a number of typographical errors that have been identified in the Bill, as amended by the Seanad. Pursuant to Standing Order 203, I request the Ceann Comhairle to direct the Clerk to make the following corrections of a typographical nature to the Bill.

In Seanad amendments Nos. 46, 57, 68, 84 and 85, in respect of the inserted subsection (6)(b) of section 68, subsection (1) of section 79, subsection (2) of section 90, item 19 of Schedule 2 and item 1 of Schedule 3, respectively, I ask that the Clerk be directed to change the word "listed" to "specified" wherever it occurs.

In Seanad amendment No. 46, in respect of the inserted subsection (6) of section 68, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert a closing bracket after the term "arrival time".

In Seanad amendment No. 52, in respect of the inserted subsection (5) of section 74, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert the word "shall" in between the word "staff" and the term "be accountable". It will now read "the member of staff shall be accountable".

In Seanad amendment No. 57, in respect of the inserted subsection (1) of section 79, I ask that the Clerk be directed to remove the comma after the term "Schedule 4".

In Seanad amendment No. 68, in respect of the inserted subsection (3)(a)(1) of section 90, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert the term "purpose of" after the term "necessary for the". It will now read, "the transfer of the data to the competent authority is necessary for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating".

In Seanad amendment No. 71, in respect of the inserted subsection (8) of section 93, I ask that the Clerk be directed to change the cross-referenced subsection from "subsection (4)" to "subsection (5)". It will now read "where the Independent Authority revokes an authorisation under subsection (5)".

I will direct the Clerk to make those changes.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle.

Seanad amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 81 are related and will be discussed together.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 81 have been grouped and I will speak to them together. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the commencement of the Bill and amend section 1(4), which provides for said commencement. Currently, provision is made for all provisions to be commenced by ministerial order, with certain listed exceptions which are to come into effect on enactment.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 amend section 1(4) to provide for the following provisions of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, to come into effect on enactment: subsections (1) and (4) of section 1, section 4(b)(i), section 43, section 69, insofar as it relates to the Courts Service, section 70, section 74 and Parts 3 and 4, along with the Part to be inserted that amends the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926.

I will now turn to amendment No. 81. This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule. Other operational criminal justice agencies such as the Irish Prison Service, the Probation Service and Forensic Science Ireland, being under the direct aegis of my Department, are already specified bodies under the Schedule. The Legal Aid Board is also a specified body.

Amendment No. 81 proposes to further amend Schedule 5 to the 2005 Act in order to add the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, as a specified body and to remove the current restriction on An Garda Síochána, whereby it is a specified body only in relation to its own members. Critically, this amendment will also facilitate the development of a unique identifier across the criminal justice system. I think this is something that is going to be very beneficial.

It is quite phenomenal that we are dealing with such a number of amendments from the Seanad. I reiterate a point I have made on every Stage of this Bill. Before the Minister gets overly sensitive, I absolutely accept that miscellaneous Bills have their place, particularly when we are dealing with minor technical matters or matters that are in some way related. There are important provisions in this legislation that I welcome.

The extensive range of unrelated issues dealt with, without what I consider to be appropriate levels of scrutiny ,has done a huge disservice to many of the good aspects being dealt with in the legislation. The truth of the matter is that there are good provisions in this Bill that just did not get the level of scrutiny warranted. When this legislation is made law, major aspects of it will not have been dealt with during pre-legislative scrutiny and were only touched upon on Committee and Report Stages.

A great deal of the debate on this Bill was taken up by the issue of counselling notes. It has been proven by that debate that this issue should have been a stand-alone matter. It rightly consumed most of the discussion on Committee and Report Stages. Yet we still did not have enough time to tease out amendments to improve what the Minister has in this Bill, including the more serious concern that these provisions will allow the practice of the defence of an alleged offender in sexual violence trials to continue to be able to seek the disclosure of counselling notes under the provision of the interests of justice.

It is appropriate that we commend all those victims and survivors who engaged with us throughout the consideration of this Bill and who laid out in stark terms the impact of this practice. We will see in practice how curtailed it becomes as a result, but it has to be said that the manner in which this issue has been dealt with has compounded some of the trauma outlined. I know that many people had hoped that the Minister would, even at a later stage, introduce a full ban on the disclosure of counselling notes. There will be a huge amount of scrutiny. I hope that the Minister is right that, in reality, when it comes to the practice of the courts, we will actually see a fundamental change in their approach in dealing with this matter.

In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Minister refusing to allow the justice committee to deal with this legislation in an appropriate way. I know the Minister is eager and anxious to get laws passed, and, in one way, that is commendable. I do, however, have a fundamental problem with the whole notion of scrutiny having been thrown out.

I must say that the additions in respect of aid to the civil power remain the most inexplicable, because this is a defence matter. It necessitated a change to the Title of the Bill, never mind anything else. It also necessitated the Minister for Defence appearing before the justice committee. I do not know how the said Minister deals with things in her own sectoral committee, but I have never seen a more ill-prepared Minister in the justice committee, or a Minister unable to answer what should have been basic questions that were put to her.

Hear, hear.

The questions put to her on that day at the justice committee still have not been answered. We still do not know the rationale for the changes, the way they were brought about and the urgency with which they were brought about. I just do not think it is appropriate that such new matters were brought into the Bill on every Stage, including during the Stages in the committee and in the Dáil.

I hope the Minister will reflect on all of that over the summer. It is for these reasons that I have opposed the Bill at every stage. It was primarily because of the approach taken to counselling notes, but also the approach taken to the Bill as a whole. This is the reason why I will be voting against the final passage of the legislation. I just want to put that on the record because, notwithstanding that, there are some extremely important legislative changes in this Bill that I do support. Had the Minister taken a different approach, I think he would have had unanimous support in these Houses on every Stage, which should have been the way of doing things when we are dealing with issues that, in many cases, have been long campaigned for. I am thinking of the issue of the retrospective disregarding of convictions for gay men, and other extremely important issues that have come about as a result of decades of campaigning. They should not have been put into a Bill that has become divisive as a result of the political decisions made concerning how this legislation would be pushed through the House.

I will not be opposing any amendments. Most of them are very technical, and a few of them are on significant issues.

As I said previously, I believe in miscellaneous Bills. I brought them in myself. I have no issue with them, but this is one of the most mental Bills I have ever seen. The Minister laughed the last time I said that, and he is laughing this time. In fairness to him, I got what he said last time. We are getting to the summer break, so spirits are high and all of that. We could equally be here criticising the Minister for not doing stuff. Here we are on the second-last evening before the recess, and we are going through four different Bills. This is commendable on the part of the Minister, his officials, the Department, and all of that.

This Bill, though, is so mental regarding the number of areas it covers. I have never, in my time in here, nearly 20 years, seen legislation so mental as regards the breadth and depth of issues. It is an A to Z of issues. Many of them could have been Bills on their own, while some of them could have been grouped together. The depth and breadth of issues here, however, is phenomenal. A few more have been thrown into this evening. There is also the matter of the structure by which so many amendments were being brought forward on different Stages. At times, it was actually quite difficult even to follow, which is never good, to be fair. I have said all this before, so I am not going to repeat it. I would not like to see this happening consistently.

Having said all that, however, we will support the Bill. It is commendable that this House has finally dealt with a number of areas in the legislation. I acknowledge what the Minister said about my colleague, Senator Laura Harmon. She came to the Minister in relation to the sex-for-rent issue. I have to acknowledge the fact that the Minister has always commended her on this issue. She has always been a strong campaigner on this issue given her history of involvement in student politics. I also acknowledge the National Women’s Council of Ireland, NWCI, Women’s Aid, the Irish Council for International Students, ICOS, and the Rape Crisis Centre. I must acknowledge Ann Murphy of The Examiner too.

In relation to LGBT and the issue of historical convictions, my colleague, Deputy Ged Nash, has worked on this issue for over a decade, which the Minister has acknowledged as well, along with other colleagues in this House. It is a very important and historic night. It was thought that this would happen later, but so many people I know will be so thankful for and welcoming of this aspect of the legislation.

They will be in with us later tonight.

The issue in relation to counselling notes is one we really had to have so much discussion about. It was a very difficult discussion. It was very intricate and very tricky. The test of time will apply. The jury is out - pardon the pun - in relation to this issue. I hope we have done the public the best service we can in relation to that issue. I am not going to rehash all the components because it came down to one or two words in the end; I just hope we are.

As regards the aid to civil powers, the fact that has come in under this measure and the timing of it is a very strange development as regards how this Bill was brought forward. I would not like to see that again because it made very little sense as regards the timing and how the other Minister participated in a Bill brought forward by the Minister for justice.

In the Labour Party, having gone through all the amendments, most are very technical. We will not oppose the amendments and will support the Bill.

A couple of weeks back in this Chamber, when discussing the previous Stage of this Bill, I looked up the Gallery. In the Gallery there were campaigners who campaigned for decades, some of whom were friends of mine, for the removal of historical convictions for gay men. In another part of the Gallery were women who had to come before a committee and relive their trauma and ask for change when it comes to the use of counselling notes in rape cases.

I do not believe it is good practice. I understand the concept of a miscellaneous Bill but where there are issues of such unimaginable importance being discussed in the same legislation, it creates confusion. The confusion for us is immaterial but that does not matter. We can catch up but for advocacy groups and campaigners, it leaves them in a very different situation. I do not believe for a second it is good practice.

Within this Bill there are issues pertaining to the use of pepper spray and incapacitant spray in prisons. It is an area I feel deeply passionate about. I did not get any chance to really scrutinise those aspects of this Bill on any of the Stages.

There is the issue of aid to civil powers which was quite bizarre when it was brought to the justice committee with the Minister for Defence there. I appreciate the Minister is in a hurry but his hurry should not disregard parliamentary norms and the idea of scrutiny. There are many great aspects in this Bill, which I will vote for, but we should not do business like this. A lot of things are going on. We are into our third hour discussing issues in relation to District Court and Circuit Court without even mentioning that there is chaos reigning as we speak. I will support this Bill.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, and 87 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

These amendments relate to the authority of An Garda Síochána to deploy radio frequency jammers to counteract drones. I am advised that these legislative amendments are necessary to confirm that An Garda Síochána has the legal powers where necessary and proportionate to deal with dangerous or hostile drone activity through the use of what are called “radio frequency jammers”.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are technical in nature and simply deal with references to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 and the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024.

Amendment No. 5 amends section 3(6) of the 1926 Act to ensure that the general prohibition on the possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence from ComReg does not apply to a radio frequency jammer kept by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of working or using it in accordance with the proposed new sections 12(1B) and 12B(1B) of the 1926 Act.

Amendments No. 7 and 8 are consequential in nature. At present, sections 12 and 12B of the 1926 Act provide for offences and monetary penalties for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus to interfere with other such apparatus which would at present apply to An Garda Síochána if it used this equipment.

Amendment No. 87 amends the Long Title of the Bill to reference the amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926.

Seanad amendments Nos. 9 to 18, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

These amendments relate to the non-judicial role of the Chief Justice.

Amendment No. 9 deals with section 6 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil. It amends section 67 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, which provides for the superior courts rules committee to allow the Chief Justice to nominate an ordinary judge of the Supreme Court. These changes are being introduced to reduce the non-judicial workload of the Chief Justice and the respective courts.

Amendments Nos. 10 to 18, inclusive, amend section 8 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil which amends sections 12 and 44 of the Judicial Council Act 2019 in relation to the membership of the board of the Judicial Council and the judicial conduct committee.

The proposed further amendments provide for the revocation at any time of a nomination to act as chair of the board or the judicial conduct committee and for a cessation of effect of nominations for a judge performing the functions of the Chief Justice.

Seanad amendments Nos. 19, 29, 88 and 90 are related and may be discussed together.

Amendment No. 19 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984. It inserts new subsections (2) to (6) into section 10 to provide a statutory basis for the admissibility of certificates of results of Garda-administered presumptive drug testing, PDT. It introduces a legal presumption in favour of the evidential value of such certificates subject to rebuttal evidence.

Amendment No. 29 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend section 154 of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014 to allow the director of Forensic Science Ireland to delegate his or her functions under the amended section 10 of the 1984 Act to appropriate officers of FSI.

Amendments Nos. 88 and 90 amend the Long Title consequential on the addition of these amendments.

Seanad amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, and 89 are related and may be discussed together.

These amendments, in fairness to Deputy Carthy, arise as a result of an amendment he tabled on Committee Stage and Report Stage in the Dáil. I accepted his amendment, which inserts a new section into the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to provide that where a person is convicted of any indictable offence, character evidence for sentencing purposes must be given on oath or by affidavit. That amendment was included as section 17 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil. The purpose of amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 is to tighten up the drafting and address a number of drafting and consequential matters arising.

Amendment No. 20 deletes the existing section 23 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil and amendment No. 22 inserts in its place a new stand-alone provision, which is substantively the same, but is more precisely drafted and contains a transitional provision. Amendment No. 21, therefore, repeals that provision to prevent duplication on the Statute Book.

Amendment No. 23 inserts a new Part into the Bill to amend the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 to address a specific public order issue, which is the deliberate use of face coverings for intimidatory purposes in public places, and particularly at protests. I stress that this is not a ban on face coverings, nor a ban on wearing face coverings at protests, nor does it create a general power for An Garda Síochána to require a person wearing a face covering in public to remove it. It is a limited addition to the public order framework, which may be exercised only in specific circumstances. The amendment provides that, where a member of An Garda Síochána suspects with reasonable cause that a person is acting in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension about public safety or for the maintenance of public peace and that the person is wearing the face covering with intent to intimidate another person or in a manner likely to intimidate another person, the garda may direct that person to desist from the conduct, remove the face covering and leave the vicinity. An offence only arises where a person "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse" fails to comply with that Garda direction. It will still be the case that people will be able to wear face masks for religious and cultural reasons and, even at a protest, people will still be able to wear a face mask. They may not want people to know they are there. The only time this public order offence would be triggered is in circumstances where a person is seeking to intimidate other people or it is likely a person's behaviour will intimidate them.

Amendment No. 89 amends the Long Title.

I thank the Minister for accepting my amendment on character references in trials. Unfortunately, we did not get to the amendment on Committee Stage. Reading back on the report, if I had been eating cornflakes, I would have nearly choked on them, such was my surprise that the Minister had accepted my amendment. I thank him for and commend him on doing so because it is a significant change to the law. It is a simple change, but will be helpful to victims and their families in their pursuit of justice.

The use of character references on sentencing in Irish courts has long been controversial and, in some cases, it has compounded the trauma of victims and their families. There has been an ongoing debate about the weight given to character references. Some judges have argued that they do not carry huge weight in determining the outcome of sentencing. That is debatable and certainly not an excuse for allowing what was a flawed system to continue. I have spoken to many people who were devastated as character references came out. Particularly where guilty pleas apply, as someone pleads guilty the whole details of the case might not be divulged to the court and might not be made public. Then a character reference is read out at a sentencing hearing in public talking about how great the individual might have been.

There have been serious questions about the accuracy of some of the character references given in public. I have also heard about a case - this was particularly concerning - where people supplied character references but did not realise that they were for a court case, or knew it was for a court case but did not know what crimes applied. Then there were questions around the veracity because they were written documents.

An important and welcome change was introduced in respect of sexual offences cases. In such cases, in recent years, references have had to be given on oath or under affidavit and, crucially, can be cross-examined in court. It made sense that this be the case for all indictable offences. It made little sense to have a higher standard in respect of character references in some cases than in others, particularly when they can relate to very serious crimes, including unlawful killings.

I was clear. My impetus for tabling this amendment came from dealing with people who had been in a court that was dealing with the unlawful killing of their loved one and, at the end of the case, someone said this individual was a great person. The sense those families had was that the character references played a role in downplaying the seriousness of the offence or the impact on the victim because they focused on the offender's reputation.

I met one victim in respect of whom a sentence for coercive control had been secured. The conviction was welcome and difficult, as can be imagined, and then an employer talked about how great the convicted person was at showing up to work on time, always left the place tidy and got on well with all their colleagues. None of that could possibly have had any implication in whether a person was engaged in coercively controlling their partner behind closed doors. I do not know. In fairness, the sentence in that case was reflective of the seriousness of the crime, but at the same time, it was difficult for the victim to hear that being read out. It transpired in that case - it was one of the cases I mentioned, as I contacted the employer involved - that the employer had no idea what the charge being dealt with was and the employer was subsequently embarrassed about it. In that instance, if people know that they are providing a reference they have to give under oath or by affidavit and that they could be cross-examined, we can be damn sure that employers would make sure they knew what they were giving a reference for beforehand.

I am pleased that will now change as a result of the Minister accepting this amendment. I support the Seanad amendment. It is set out in a clear way how this will apply. It is a major step forward for fairness and accountability in our courts and for victims who have been traumatised by the existing system, so I thank the Minister.

I will deal with two of the amendments in a moment, but first I add my voice to those who have already made the point about the modus operandi of how this Bill was developed and evolved with the adding of extra issues again and again. The last night, on the counselling notes issue, every Opposition party recognised it should have been dealt with as a separate issue because of its importance to survivors and because it was the Minister's first Bill on court processes. He has introduced other legislation, including Jennie's law and the law about the children of victims of femicide or murder, which I welcome. However, the way survivors were treated needs to be raised again. The last night we were here, we had approximately 40 minutes for the entire debate and, because we worked together, we at least maximised that time. However, survivors left here upset that night. They continued and followed the Bill to the Seanad, which was a slightly more positive experience because they at least heard the arguments we had been articulating, which probably got more time there. That made them feel somewhat better. However, particularly that night, they saw that one amendment was voted on and that they were just not listened to. This should not happen again, particularly with an issue of such importance.

I will raise two issues. The first is face coverings at protests. I have been at protests where people wore face coverings.

During the Covid pandemic, that was obviously a normal thing to do. The Debenhams workers were on strike throughout the pandemic, having been sacked by a multinational. We always encouraged people to wear face coverings, even when outside. However, there are people who wear face coverings not just for religious or cultural reasons, but for medical reasons. I know disabled activists who will not attend any event unless they can wear a mask. The Minister may say they will be protected in that but he knows that things like this can be abused. I am just not sure why he has included this provision in relation to protests. It may need a bit more explanation but here we are on the second last night of the Dáil term. I do not support what the Minister has included. It is something that needs a lot more debate. We all know that some people can cover their faces to intimidate others. I accept that but this is being introduced with 50 other issues in this Bill.

I will make a point about character references. I obviously support the amendment but we do have to return to this whole issue of character references in trials. On the one hand, I know the Minister would say that people have a right to a fair trial and that this is part of the very important constitutional right to a fair trial. That is a bit ironic because we also have non-jury courts. How do those things balance each other or even match? We say that the use of counselling notes and character references must be allowed and yet we can have non-jury trials. This is something that should be examined.

The upcoming Oireachtas committee may be able to examine it in more detail because these references are a real problem with regard to gender-based violence, given particular dynamics that pertain to gender-based and sexual violence. Most people who are given these references are not experts. A constituent contacted me who was the victim of sexual assault. Their brother was convicted of this but got a suspended sentence. This constituent believes that is because references were read out as the very last word in that trial. This man was convicted but then, all of a sudden, these references were read out. The references were from the father of the wife of the perpetrator. How is this person an expert in the dynamics of child sexual abuse? My constituent believes that this had an impact on the judge. We also know from several studies that men - women can obviously also commit gender-based violence but male violence is mainly the issue - who perpetrate domestic violence, coercive control or sexual violence are arch-manipulators. They are exceptionally skilled at deceiving people. They put one face on in public and another face on in private. There is a real problem with character references in these cases. It really is something that needs to be looked at. It has caused huge offence.

There is another thing the Minister could clear up. We were told that the Government had already changed the law so that a person had to be in court and ready to give, under oath-----

That is for sexual offences.

That did not happen in the recently reported case involving a former Fianna Fáil TD. He was not called up to testify.

It predated the legislation.

The Minister will have an opportunity to come back in.

I am just asking why it did not happen in that case. Was it because it was about parole? Is there a difference in that case?

I ask the Deputy to stick to the amendment.

It does not seem to have been fully applied. We definitely need to discuss this topic again.

I presume that was because the offence in that case predated the new legislation brought in requiring oral evidence in respect of references in cases of sexual offences. As a result of the amendment, this provision will now cover all indictable offences.

Seanad amendments Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Amendments Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, have been grouped. They relate to Part 11 of the Bill, which concerns the International Criminal Court. They are of a minor and very technical nature.

Amendments Nos. 30 to 42, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

These are the amendments in respect of the disregard section of the Bill, which is Part 15. Amendments Nos. 30 to 36, inclusive, and 39 to 41, inclusive, are minor textual amendments to make certain terms and references clearer and more precise. The purpose of the remaining amendments is to make the provisions relating to the revocation of a disregard clearer and more robust, including certain procedural steps that could otherwise be regarded as implicit.

Amendment No. 37 inserts a new section obliging a relevant public body to make the Minister aware if it becomes aware of information indicating that a disregard may have been granted on foot of false or misleading information.

Amendment No. 38 amends section 60 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil to broaden the matters to which the Minister must have regard before forming an initial view that a disregard should be revoked.

Amendment No. 42 inserts a new subsection into section 61 in order to make express provision for the Minister to proceed with revoking a disregard where the applicant has not requested a review of the proposed revocation within the allotted timeframe or the Minister reasonably considers such a request to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unfounded.

Amendments Nos. 43 to 80, inclusive, 84 to 86, inclusive, and 91 are related and may be discussed together.

These amendments concern the use of electronic means. The main body of the amendments relate to passenger name records. I will briefly deal with amendments Nos. 43 to 45. These put in a new Part 17 relating to electronic technology in certain proceedings. Amendment No. 43 inserts a new section defining the types of proceedings in question. Amendments 44 and 45 insert two new sections to provide respectively that court rules may, in relation to such proceedings, make provision for the electronic transmission of documents. These amendments are modelled on equivalent legislation that is already in place in respect of civil proceedings.

I will now turn to amendments Nos. 46 to 80, inclusive, 84 to 86, inclusive, and 91. These relate to passenger name record data. They propose the insertion of a new Part 17. Passenger name record data, PNR data, consists of booking information provided by passengers, which is collected by and held in the airlines’ reservation and departure control systems. This provision is already in place a result of Ireland's transposition of the PNR directive by way of the 2018 EU PNR data regulations, which established a unit within the Department of justice.

The regulations apply the regime only to what are referred to as extra-EU flights, which is required by the directive. The purpose here is to apply them to internal EU flights as well.

Amendments Nos. 46 to 50, inclusive, insert Chapter 1 of Part 17. They are standard legislative provisions that refer to a definition sections and such other matters.

Amendment Nos. 51 to 56, inclusive, insert Chapter 2. This chapter relates to the Irish passenger information unit, its director, its data protection officer, other staff and its obligations as regards processing and reporting activities.

Amendments Nos. 57 to 59, inclusive, insert Chapter 3. Amendment No. 57 provides for the competent authorities designated under the 2018 regulations to remain so designated. Amendment No. 58 provides that the Minister may designate a person as the “Independent Authority” for the purposes of the State’s PNR regime. Amendment No. 59 sets out the Data Protection Commission’s oversight function as regards this legislation.

Amendments 60 to 62, inclusive, inserts new Chapter 4 of Part 17. The chapter provides for the designation by the PIU of individual intra-EU flights that will be encompassed by the State’s PNR regime. Amendment No. 62 provides for designation of all-intra EU flights unilaterally when the State is faced with a genuine and present or foreseeable terrorist threat, but only on approval by the High Court.

Amendments Nos. 63 to 71, inclusive, deal with the transfer and exchange of PNR data. Amendment No. 63 refers to airlines’ obligations to transfer PNR data to the PIU a day before take-off. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 refer to the process undertaken by the PIU of assessing the transferred PNR data against serious crime or terrorism watchlists and pre-determined criteria to identify persons of interest due to take the flight or on-board.

Amendments Nos. 66 to 71, inclusive, deal with requests for PNR data held by the PIU from competent authorities in the State, PIUs in other EU countries, Europol and third countries, as well requests by the Irish PIU and other authorities.

Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 deal with the retention periods for PNR data and maintenance of documentation by the PIU.

Amendments Nos. 74 to 80, inclusive, insert chapter 7 of Part 17. It deals with transitional provisions.

Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 insert Schedules 2, 3 and 4 into the Bill. Schedule 2 defines the data categories that make up the PNR data. Schedule 3 lists the competent authorities in the State that can request PNR data.

Amendment No. 91 amends the Long Title consequential on these amendments.