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 Roderic O'Gorman - To discuss capacity issues and the proposed timeline for a school extension project.

Deputy Joe Cooney - To discuss the postponement of the new localised weather warning system.

Deputy Michael Cahill - To discuss funding for the N70 Ring of Kerry road.

Deputy Erin McGreehan - To discuss the need to legislate for tokenisation of the funds industry.

Deputy Albert Dolan - To discuss the publication of the revised wind energy development guidelines.

Deputy Fionntán Ó Súilleabháin - To discuss Bunclody AFC and the fallout of Clearwater going into liquidation.

Deputy Michael Murphy - To discuss the need to strengthen Uisce Éireann's accountability to Dáil Éireann.

Deputy Conor D. McGuinness - To discuss water services infrastructure investment and supply disruption i gContae Phort Láirge.

Deputy Pa Daly - To discuss physiotherapy services in Kerry.

Deputy Thomas Gould - To discuss deficits in local authority funding and resulting increases to social housing rents.

Deputy Robert O'Donoghue - To discuss a school project in Rush, County Dublin.

Deputy Ryan O'Meara - To discuss financial supports for community cafés.

Deputy Cathy Bennett - To discuss efforts to secure a public sector pay deal.

Deputy Matt Carthy - To discuss the necessary steps for Monaghan County Council to secure funding for a swimming pool in Carrickmacross.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire - To discuss the domiciliary in and out, DOMINO, scheme at Cork University Maternity Hospital, CUMH.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú - To discuss the difficulties experienced by people whose boilers have broken.

The matters raised by Deputies Roderic O'Gorman, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, Joe Cooney, Albert Dolan and Matt Carthy have been selected for discussion

Before proceeding, I remind Members that parliamentary privilege should be exercised in a responsible manner, and Members should avoid making allegations against identifiable persons who are not in a position to respond. Under the sub judice rule, there is also an onus to avoid comment that may prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings. Therefore, Members should exercise particular care in their contributions and refrain from naming individuals, including any person who may have made a protected disclosure.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes that:

— concerns were raised regarding the safety, suitability and serviceability of certain Garda firearm holsters through protected disclosures, internal reports and training personnel prior to the fatal shooting of a member of An Garda Síochána in June 2020;

— firearms instructors and other personnel are reported to have raised concerns about holster performance and equipment safety during training exercises;

— evidence arising from training exercises and a firearms-related incident involving a Garda member shortly before the fatal shooting is said to have raised additional questions regarding holster safety and associated forensic findings;

— questions remain as to whether the equipment worn by the Garda member at the time of his death was subjected to a comprehensive and independent technical examination;

— a quality-assurance review completed in 2024 identified concerns regarding the investigation of protected disclosures relating to firearms equipment, including issues relating to technical expertise, forensic evidence, procurement processes and investigative methodology;

— in 2025, concerns were raised by those involved in the protected disclosures process that significant questions remained unresolved and that further enquiries were required before certain disclosures could be closed;

— responsibility for the disclosures were subsequently reassigned, and closed shortly thereafter, notwithstanding the existence of unresolved issues identified by those previously examining them;

— further concerns have been raised regarding the engagement and withdrawal of independent technical expertise, the reliance on internal assessments, and the adequacy and independence of technical reports prepared during the course of the investigations;

— allegations have been made that individuals who raised concerns through protected disclosures, or who challenged aspects of the investigative process, experienced adverse professional consequences;

— questions have also been raised regarding the treatment of personnel involved in the administration and oversight of protected disclosures, and whether sufficient safeguards existed to protect them from adverse treatment; and

— concerns have been expressed regarding the handling of disclosures involving allegations against senior office holders and whether existing arrangements provide sufficient independence, transparency and accountability;

recognises that:

— Detective Garda Horkan was much loved by his family and friends, was a pillar of his community and was a dedicated member of An Garda Síochána, and his murder was a desperate loss to all who knew him;

— the Horkan family have called for an independent public inquiry; and

— ongoing criminal or inquest proceedings must be protected, but they should not become an indefinite reason for withholding independent scrutiny of distinct administrative and public-safety failures;

has concerns that extend to:

— defective ammunition, and the reported disposal of approximately 500,000 rounds;

— firearms storage, recording and accountability;

— procurement irregularities and alleged supplier favouritism;

— inappropriate servicing or repair of privately owned firearms;

— alleged misuse of Garda resources, fraud and financial wrongdoing;

— ammunition procurement and testing;

— staffing, training and specialist promotions within the Garda National Technical Bureau; and

— potential consequences for public safety and the integrity of criminal investigations; and

calls on the Government to constitute a full independent public inquiry that:

— is genuinely independent of An Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration;

— has effective powers to secure documents, electronic records and testimony;

— can examine the knowledge, actions and omissions of senior Garda management, including the former Garda Commissioner Drew Harris, where relevant;

— can independently test the disputed forensic examinations and the technical evidence concerning holster safety;

— can examine the original procurement competition, the weighting of cost against quality, mandatory safety specifications, technical testing and the role of independent expertise;

— can examine interference allegations, expert selection and the premature closure of protected disclosures;

— can investigate allegations of penalisation and failures to protect reporting persons;

— can review the accuracy of information supplied to Ministers, the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Horkan family;

— can refer evidence of suspected criminal wrongdoing to the competent authorities;

— can examine whether other protected disclosures involving public safety were inadequately investigated or closed without proper resolution;

— can examine why the files were closed, and how two serious disclosures were closed on 23rd June, 2025, after the Protected Disclosures Manager had expressly stated that material questions remained unanswered;

— can examine why cost was given greater weight than quality, who authorised 500 marks for cost and 400 for quality in the procurement of firearm holsters, what mandatory technical safety standards applied, and who independently verified compliance before the contract was awarded and the equipment issued;

— can examine who was accountable, who authorised the reassignment, and the closure decisions and the representations subsequently made to the Ministers and the public;

— can examine why were whistleblowers penalised;

— can examine what statutory authority permitted the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, to intervene in the handling of a report that the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner had already transmitted to a designated statutory recipient under Section 10D of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014;

— can examine why the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, sent a Protected Disclosure to the then Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, given that it was expressly identified as a separate Protected Disclosure in its own right;

— can examine why on 21st December, 2023, a protected disclosure was redirected to An Garda Síochána following a direction by the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, and why identifying information appeared in the titles of attachments transmitted by the Department of Justice to senior Garda management, including to an individual implicated in the very allegations;

— can examine why extremely serious allegations concerning the former Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, did not meet the threshold for an investigation under Section 102B of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, what evidence was considered; and

— who undertook that assessment and why was further information not sought through the designated statutory process before that conclusion was reached.

First, I pay tribute to Detective Garda Colm Horkan, who was murdered in the line of duty in June 2020. He was a much-loved individual by his family and friends. He was a pillar of his community and a dedicated member of An Garda Síochána. His murder was a desperate loss to all who knew him. From what I understand of Colm, he was a quiet individual and probably would not like his name to be used in a location such as this but he was also a man who fought for justice and truth, and that is important. I also pay tribute to the gardaí who have stood up and made protected disclosures at great cost to themselves in recent years. Some of those gardaí are in the Public Gallery with us here today, and I thank them for that. I pay tribute to some of the many journalists who have looked into this issue over the past few years - people like John Lee, Mick Clifford and others, who have made sure this information has come to light.

While this issue is a complex one and has many different elements to it, at the heart of it is an incredible crisis at a senior level in An Garda Síochána and a lack of ministerial oversight and, in some cases, Ministers breaking the law on what they are supposed to do in upholding the protected disclosures legislation. Remember the words "protected disclosure". The whole idea of a protected disclosure is that good people who see wrongdoing in a location can raise that wrongdoing, have it investigated and be protected in the manner in which they do that. What we see here is the opposite of that. We have seen very good gardaí raise issues and be punished significantly for the actions they have taken. There is a serious result in that which is that in the future, good people will shut up. Good people will say nothing, will keep quiet, will keep their heads down or will leave. If that happens, a dysfunction will be created at the head and senior levels of An Garda Síochána - a dysfunction that will be detrimental to people's lives and one that will put gardaí lives at risk. It will also hit the civilians they are supposed to serve hard.

At the heart of these particular allegations, it is alleged the gardaí were given materials that were unsafe. In this case, they were given holsters that did not retain the loaded guns they were carrying, and this could have possibly led to the serious injury of one particular garda and the murder of Detective Garda Colm Horkan. A garda raised this issue about these holsters in 2019, in advance of the murder of Detective Garda Colm Horkan. Firearms trainers within the gardaí also raised these concerns. Video footage reportedly recorded during live firearms training in May 2020 demonstrated potential equipment safety problems. On 11 June 2020, a detective was involved in an accidental discharge associated with a firearm and that holster, subsequently giving rise to serious injury and forensic concerns. Serious questions arise from the fact this information was ignored, and we know these concerns were brought to senior gardaí before Colm's murder. Who received the warnings and the video evidence? Why did the equipment remain in use, and who is responsible for assessing and managing that risk?

An Garda Síochána has publicly asserted that Colm's holster was examined by Forensic Science Ireland and a GNTB ballistic expert gave evidence at Stephen Silver's trial. It is seriously disputed whether those examinations adequately addressed the particular holster safety defects identified through the protected disclosure. Relevant safety defects have never been subject to an adequate technical examination. The McMenamin investigation recorded a visual inspection on Colm's holster on 7 February 2024, approximately three years and seven months after his murder. Serious questions remain concerning the qualifications and independence of the examiners, the testing undertaken and the scientific foundation for reassuring the conclusions. Who actually examined Colm's holster? What precise tests were undertaken? Where were the specific defects identified by the whistleblowers and were they tested? Where are the original reports, photographs, laboratory records and exhibit continuity documents? These are all questions that have not been answered.

The procurement of leather pistol holsters raises questions about tendering, restructuring, supplier relationships, conflicts of interest and product quality, and the priority assigned to operational safety. The McMenamin report recorded an evaluation allocating a maximum of a thousand marks - 500 marks to cost, 400 marks to quality and 100 marks to delivery. That is incredibly serious. We have more marks afforded to the cost of a holster than to the quality of that particular product. Why was cost allocated more than quality in the procurement of a product that held a loaded firearm carried by a Garda member? A Garda firearm holster is not an ordinary piece of equipment or clothing; it is essential in retaining and securing a loaded firearm and protecting that member, their colleagues and the public from accidental discharge, unauthorised access or equipment failure. Public procurement principles permit this situation to arise. Who allowed for that public procurement principle to be put in place, and why has it not been changed?

A tender arrangement in which a lower-price product could overcome materially inferior safety performance raises fundamental questions as to the design of that competition. The McMenamin report also had concerns around the serviceability and evidence-questioning claims that the selected holsters were superior to earlier Cobra holsters. Who approved the tender evaluation, and who allocated the 500 marks to cost but only 400 to quality for this? Who exposed gardaí to this potentially fatal danger? Who determined the weighting? These are all questions that have not been answered on this. Were experienced firearms trainers, ballisticians, armourers and independent technician specialists consulted before these contracts were awarded? What product testing happened for this, including testing under realistic operational conditions following prolonged use? What role did the supplier take in the tenders and their structures? Were there conflicts of interest at play here?

The second element of our motion today looks at what happened to the gardaí who were involved in trying to bring this information to light, which is incredible. The information I and many others have received here is unprecedented in the history of An Garda Síochána. On July 2024, protected disclosure manager, Rose Sweeney, and facilitator, Dr. Donal Corcoran, prepared a detailed 108-page quality assurance review. The McMenamin investigation into PD 2020/04 raised specific questions around the holster safety, contradictory forensic evidence, suitability of technical experts, procurement and investigation deficiency.

On 9 June 2026, Rose Sweeney informed Commissioner Drew Harris that critical questions remained unanswered and further inquiries could affect the outcome. On 17 June 2025, Rose Sweeney expressly stated that she was not in a position to close the disclosure. On Friday, 20 June 2025, responsibility was assigned to the new manager. On Monday, 23 June 2025, the next working day, PD 2020/04 and PD 2022/15 were closed. That is an extraordinary situation to happen. Individuals tasked and paid at the most senior level to investigate serious allegations of wrongdoing in An Garda Síochána were moved, documents were closed, and there was no further investigation.

On 8 July 2025, Rose Sweeney continued to challenge the closure and the unanswered questions, and no substantive answer to that challenge is known to have been received. This is outrageous at any level. Who directed that reassignment? What changed over the weekend? Where are the answers to the 108-page review? Are there any answers to that? Does the Minister know what is asked in that review? Does he know the answers in that review? On what evidentiary basis were the investigations into firearms safety risks closed? That is a cliffhanger of lack of information that exists around serious threats to life and limb.

Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Lane was selected to provide independent specialist expertise on firearms-related disclosures. His proposed involvement did not proceed as originally envisaged. Serious questions arise considering interventions by senior Garda management, including the former Commissioner Drew Harris in relation to this. Who intervened in the independent expert arrangements? Why was Raymond Lane not permitted to complete the work proposed? Who selected the alternative examiners? Why did the proposed independent policing expertise not materialise?

Serious questions then arise concerning statements made by senior Garda management about the holster-safety forensic examinations. This is important. Brian O'Reilly disputes aspects of information supplied to the Horkan family, including the description of forensic examination of Colm's holster. Statements made by the former Commissioner Drew Harris and other senior Garda officers to Oireachtas committees must be compared with documentary records available at the time.

We are not just talking about this one specific issue. There is a whole range of firearms questions at the heart of this. We have defective ammunition and the reported disposal of approximately 500,000 rounds of defective ammunition, firearms storage, recording and accountability, procurement irregularities, alleged supplier favouritism, inappropriate servicing or repair of privately-owned firearms, alleged misuse of Garda resources, fraud and financial wrongdoing, ammunition procurement and testing, potential consequences for public safety and the integrity of criminal investigations. How many of these matters has the Minister investigated that he knows about? How many were administratively closed, and what corrective actions were taken, and can the Minister demonstrate that they were done?

This was the other element of the protected disclosures issue. These are the questions in relation to those who raised the alarm. Remember, the whole idea of the protected disclosure is to protect the whistleblower. Brian O'Reilly alleges adverse professional consequences following his protected disclosure, including decisions affecting his responsibilities at the GNTB and the firearms stores. Serious questions also arise concerning the treatment of persons within the protected disclosures office, such as Donal Corcoran, who challenged investigative deficiencies. Alleged penalisation may involve the removal of duties, exclusion, reputational undermining, and confidentiality breaches that have a cumulative professional or financial detriment. All of these elements appear to have happened to these individuals. What happened to the protected disclosures office is quite incredible. It ceased, a new one was created, and the individuals who worked in that office were then reassigned to other responsibilities. These are serious questions and there are questions for the Minister for justice as well.

There is a report in the Irish Examiner today about gardaí and firearms procurement for a private gun club in 2018. It is reported that there have been no prosecutions. The then Minister for justice seemingly unwittingly signed the licence for that procurement. Are we talking about "Fawlty Towers" here in relation to firearms?

There are serious questions about the competence of the former Minister, Deputy McEntee, and about whether she broke the law. She has not explained on what statutory authority, as former Minister for justice, she intervened in the handling of reports of the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner that had already been transmitted to a designated statutory recipient under section 10(D) of the Protected Disclosures Act. Why on 21 December 2023 was a protected disclosure redirected to An Garda Síochána following a direction from the then Minister, Deputy McEntee? Why did she identify information in the titles of those attachments transmitted to the Department and senior Garda management that allowed for the knowledge about the individual to be made known? These questions have not been answered. The Minister's amendment does not significantly address them, and he has to change it.

Independent Ireland will be supporting this motion. First and foremost, we remember Detective Garda Colm Horkan who was murdered in Castlerea in June 2020 while serving his community. Our thoughts remain with his family, colleagues, and all those who continue to feel that loss today. Nothing said in this debate should take away from one fundamental fact. The individual responsible for Detective Garda Horkan's murder was convicted by the courts and bears responsibility for that crime but there is a separate question before us today. That question is whether serious concerns relating to Garda equipment, procurement processes and protected disclosures were properly examined when they were raised. We know concerns were raised about the firearm holsters issued to Garda members. We know questions have been raised about testing procurement decisions and whether warnings from experienced Garda personnel received the attention they deserved. The Horkan family have consistently called for an independent public inquiry. That request deserves to be treated with respect and seriousness.

Every garda who goes on duty has a right to expect that the equipment issued to them is safe, properly tested and fit for purpose. Safety-critical equipment cannot be judged primarily on cost. The protection of front-line gardaí must always come first.

We must also look carefully at the handling of protected disclosures. The whole purpose of the whistleblower legislation is to ensure that people can raise concerns about public safety, potential wrongdoing or failures within organisations without fear of retaliation or damage to their careers. When somebody comes forward with legitimate a concern, the priority should be to investigate the warnings, not the person raising them.

I want to put direct questions to the Minister. Will the Minister confirm whether any warnings, reports or concerns about the safety of these firearm holsters were received before Detective Garda Horkan's death, and what action was taken in response? Was the actual holster worn by Detective Garda Horkan independently examined and by whom? Will the findings be made available? Were protected disclosures relating to these matters closed in June 2025 and were all outstanding issues fully addressed before that decision was taken? Who approved the procurement criteria for the holster, including the weighting given to cost and quality, and what mandatory safety testing was required before they were issued to Garda members? Will the Minister now commit to establishing an independent statutory inquiry with the power to compel documents and witnesses, so that these questions can finally be answered?

Today is about a wrongdoing, a wrong investigation into something at the cost of a member of An Garda Síochána's life. Detective Garda Colm Horkan lost his life over a faulty holster, which was raised by other Garda members. I see the Minister shaking his head. He has no qualification to even look at this. The people in the Gallery have the qualifications to look at holsters and they were not given a proper opportunity because it was covered up and the investigation was not done properly.

We are trying to encourage people to join An Garda Síochána to uphold the law. When we look at the history over the past eight years, and at the eight gardaí, it took five years to come to a conclusion where they were found innocent.

Who was at the head of this investigation? It was Drew Harris who has single-handedly destroyed An Garda Síochána. Why? It is because he was brought up in a policing model that is not in Ireland. It is An Garda Síochána - the guardians of our State and not the state he wanted us to go to.

The people who stood up here - Brian O'Reilly, Raymond Lane and Donal Corcoran - put themselves on the line to get justice and right a wrong. What did they do? They turned everything back on them. What does that say about the type of An Garda Síochána Drew Harris wanted, using his power in that position and putting pressure on other senior people to make sure this stayed quiet? There needs to be investigations into the person who caused this and not only this. Remember the eight gardaí who were taken off Garda duties and found innocent. Nothing was done about that either.

I move:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— there are robust structures, policies and procedures in place across the criminal justice sector, including in An Garda Síochána, to ensure the effective management of protected disclosures and to provide support to people who make disclosures under the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022; and

— the Government will not publicly discuss the merits or detail of any protected disclosure, since it is not for any Minister to reach conclusions on the veracity or legitimacy of any disclosure, as that is a function for the prescribed investigating bodies;

recognises that:

— Detective Garda Colm Horkan was much loved by his family and friends and was a highly respected and dedicated member of An Garda Síochána, and his murder was an appalling crime and is a tremendous loss to his family, friends and the Garda family;

— the murder of Detective Garda Horkan epitomises the risk and sacrifice that has been made by many members of An Garda Síochána; and

— concerns have been raised about the safety and suitability of the firearm holster used by Detective Garda Horkan at the time of the incident in which he was fatally shot;

further notes that:

— having regard to the importance of ensuring that equipment issued to members of An Garda Síochána is safe, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration has requested, under section 205(2) of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024, that Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman, investigate questions concerning the safety and suitability of the holster Detective Garda Horkan was using at the time of his murder; and

— the purpose of such a referral is to establish, through an independent external investigation, whether the holster gave rise to any operational or safety concerns;

further recognises that:

— a number of measures have been taken to strengthen protected disclosure mechanisms within An Garda Síochána;

— a new and strengthened Protected Disclosures Unit was established in January 2025, within the Garda Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Governance and Accountability, which also has responsibility for the Garda Anti-Corruption Unit and the Professional Standards Unit, the office was assigned additional and dedicated staff who have the requisite training and qualifications to undertake their role;

— extensive training has also been provided to managers across An Garda Síochána and, in addition, all personnel who make protected disclosures are advised of support services;

— the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024, established the Garda Board, the Policing and Community Safety Authority (replacing the Policing Authority and Garda Síochána Inspectorate) and Fiosrú;

— the Act was designed to enhance governance, oversight and accountability in relation to the delivery of policing and security services by An Garda Síochána;

— An Garda Síochána have emphasised that they encourage and support employees in disclosing wrongdoing and that all allegations made under the Protected Disclosures Acts to An Garda Síochána are treated seriously, and examined for any potential disciplinary or criminal matters that may arise; and

— a review of the operation of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act is due to take place in the coming year;

furthermore, notes that:

— the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act requires Ministers to transmit reports of wrongdoing to the Protected Disclosures Commissioner;

— the relevant legislation was adhered to in transmitting such reports; and

— it is not appropriate to comment or draw assumptions from partial information that relates to a process that, by its design, includes legislative provisions that protect the confidentiality of the discloser, and the details relating to the disclosure; and

furthermore, recognises that:

— there are robust structures, policies and procedures in place that ensure the effective management of protected disclosures in An Garda Síochána, and to provide support to those who make disclosures under the Act;

— there are multiple independent avenues for Garda personnel to make disclosures to ensure that disclosures are treated with the appropriate level of independent consideration, and the Government is satisfied that there are robust procedures and protections for those who make disclosures; and

— several ongoing legal processes and investigations should be allowed to progress and conclude and so consequently, a public inquiry is not under consideration at this time.".

The family of Detective Garda Colm Horkan suffered a devastating loss when he was murdered while on duty in Castlerea in 2020. I believe I speak for everyone in this House when I say that Colm’s murder shocked us all. Colm lost his life doing a job that he loved - protecting the community and serving An Garda Síochána and the State with duty and distinction. His murder again reminded us of the risks the brave men and women of An Garda Síochána take every day to protect our communities and the burden all Garda families carry in supporting them and in mourning the loss of the fallen. I have met with the Horkan family on a number of occasions, most recently last Thursday, and I am aware of its call for a public inquiry into Colm’s death.

It should be noted that the only person responsible for Colm’s murder is the individual who has been convicted of his murder. I am conscious that an appeal judgment is awaited from the Court of Appeal in respect of that conviction. It is important to allow for the conclusion of criminal proceedings that are ongoing and the outcome of the coroner’s inquest, which will be held in public, and other matters I will outline now before considering if there is a need for a public inquiry.

I would like to inform the House of a recent decision I took in relation to this matter. Questions have been raised in this House, particularly by Deputy Kelly, and elsewhere by the Horkan family and others concerning the operation of the holster he was using at the time of his murder, including its firearm-retention characteristics and its suitability for operational policing. I am of the view that these are matters of public interest that require independent examination by Fiosrú. Colm’s family is entitled to know if his holster contributed in any way to his murder and the public is entitled to expect that our brave gardaí are equipped with equipment that is fit for purpose and does not add to the risk they face day in, day out as they go about their business keeping the people of Ireland safe.

In light of the ongoing controversy surrounding the holster Colm was using and the public interest in getting to the truth as to its role or otherwise in his murder, this week, I wrote to Fiosrú - the Police Ombudsman - invoking the provisions of section 205(2) of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 to request that it undertake an investigation in the public interest into matters concerning the safety and suitability of the firearm holster used by Garda Horkan at the time he was murdered. This is not the first time I have written to Fiosrú seeking an investigation into issues raised surrounding the use of the holster.

On 27 February 2025, in my first month as Minister, I invoked section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and referred the issues raised by Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly to GSOC. I referred the issues raised by him to GSOC because I believed it was in the public interest for his complaints to be investigated. In referring this matter to GSOC, I also assumed, based on the commentary and correspondence I have seen and heard, that this would meet with his approval. He had expressly requested that his complaints be investigated by GSOC. Therefore, I was disappointed when I was informed by Fiosrú, which has now replaced GSOC, in a letter to the Department dated 28 May 2026 that "in the absence of further engagement from the reporting person Fiosrú’s investigation of this matter has been discontinued in accordance with section 93(1)(c) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005." On a positive note, however, Fiosrú did state that it had advised Detective Superintendent O’Reilly that he was entitled to engage directly with that office at any time in the future. I wrote to Detective Superintendent O’Reilly on 1 October 2026 asking him to re-engage with Fiosrú, so that it can complete the investigation of his complaints. Again, I ask him to re-engage. Fiosrú is the appropriate statutory body to investigate his complaints.

I am satisfied that Fiosrú has all the powers needed to fully investigate this matter, particularly since the enactment of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. Fiosrú is fully independent in the exercise of its functions and I have every confidence in its capacity to investigate this issue without fear or favour. For my part, I am only interested in the truth of the matter. Colm’s family deserves it and so does the public. I have advised the Garda Commissioner of my decision to refer the case to Fiosrú and he has assured me of the full co-operation of An Garda Síochána with the investigation. I should add that I have also directed my officials to write to the Roscommon coroner and offer the Department’s practical support to ensure that the coronial investigation process is advanced in a timely manner.

Insofar as the question of a public inquiry is concerned, my position is this: there are criminal proceedings before the courts and a coronial process to be undertaken. The Fiosrú investigation will take its course and reach conclusions on the matters. Once these processes have concluded, I will consider if there are any outstanding matters that need further inquiry or investigation and if so, the nature of any such inquiry or investigation.

Turning to the matter of protected disclosures more generally, I would like to place on record that as Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, I take extremely seriously any protected disclosures that are made within the justice sector. To facilitate those reporting a protected disclosure, a member of An Garda Síochána or Garda staff has a number of options. In the first instance, he or she can make the protected disclosure to the protected disclosures unit within An Garda Síochána, go to Fiosrú, go to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner or go to a Minister. The protected disclosures Act is designed to enable a discloser to make a protected disclosure without his or her identity being publicised except for the proposes of the investigation itself.

In updating the legislation in 2022, the Oireachtas made several important amendments to the 2014 Act. Most notably, it created the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner and it removed Ministers from the follow-up and investigation of protected disclosures. Specifically, section 8(3) of the Act, as amended, requires Ministers to transmit reports of wrongdoing to the Protected Disclosures Commissioner without having considered the report, the information or any allegation.

As the House will be aware, the Garda Commissioner is responsible for the management and administration of Garda business, including the organisation's obligations under the Protected Disclosures Act. I know that An Garda Síochána considers the handling of protected disclosures to be of the utmost importance and is committed to ensuring the integrity of the structure and process for making and investigating all such reports. I am assured by the Garda Commissioner that all protected disclosures made to An Garda Síochána are treated seriously. Furthermore, the Commissioner has taken a number of measures to strengthen the protected disclosure mechanisms and structures within An Garda Síochána.

A new protected disclosures unit was established in January 2025 within the office of the assistant commissioner for governance and accountability, which also has responsibility for the Garda anti-corruption unit and the professional standards unit. The office was assigned additional and dedicated staff who have the requisite training and qualifications to undertake their role. In addition, Transparency International Ireland has provided training to the protected disclosures unit and senior Garda managers and provides support and confidential advice to any member of An Garda Síochána who may be considering making a protected disclosure. Extensive training has also been provided to Garda managers across An Garda Síochána. All personnel who make protected disclosures are advised of support services that are available to them.

The Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 established the Garda Board, the Policing and Community Safety Authority and Fiosrú-the Office of the Police Ombudsman. These changes enhance governance, oversight and accountability in relation to the delivery of policing and security services by An Garda Síochána. Where protected disclosures are made internally within An Garda Síochána, the 2024 Act gives the Garda Board and the audit committee important oversight roles in relation to the operation of the protected disclosures system in An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána has emphasised that it encourages and supports employees in disclosing wrongdoing and that all allegations made under protected disclosures are treated seriously and examined for any potential disciplinary or criminal matters that may arise.

Having regard to these changes and the substantial programme of Garda reform that has been undertaken over the last decade, I am satisfied that there is a robust system in place to deal with and oversee the handling of protected disclosures in An Garda Síochána.

As I have outlined today, there are a number of legal processes and investigations ongoing relating to protected disclosures, which, directly or indirectly, are linked to the question of the suitability of the holster used by detective garda Colm Horkan. I am confident that the referral by me of this issue to Fiosrú for investigation can provide the Horkan family and the public with the answers they deserve but if there are still outstanding issues, I will consider what further inquiry or investigation is needed.

I commend the countermotion to the House.

I have just taken the Chair. Before we continue I remind Members that parliamentary privilege should be exercised in a responsible manner and Members should avoid making allegations against identifiable persons who are not in a position to respond. Under the sub judice rule there is also an onus to avoid comment that may prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings. Therefore, Members should exercise particular care in their contributions and refrain from naming individuals, including any person who may have made a protected disclosure. On that basis, we move forward to the next speaker, an Teachta Paul Lawless.

I want to make clear that Aontú will not support the Government's amendment to the motion. The Garda whistleblower scandal is extremely serious. I have never seen anything of this scale in my lifetime. My eyes have been opened to the level of corruption happening before our eyes. It is incomprehensible that there has been so little debate, and no debate in this Chamber, following the “RTÉ Investigates” programme. I cannot understand how the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, who decided that her Department would not investigate the protected disclosures about gun holsters still holds a Cabinet position. This is an extremely complicated issue but at the heart of it we know detective garda Colm Horkan was working in Castlerea and was murdered on 17 June 2020. He was shot after he approached a man named Stephen Silver. Silver managed to disarm detective Horkan from the holster and fired 15 rounds of ammunition, 11 of which wounded detective Horkan. Colm Horkan was a native of Charlestown. In recent days, weeks and months, Garda whistleblowers have come forward with very serious allegations and questions about the gun holster that Colm Horkan was wearing that night.

We know that six days prior to the murder of Colm Horkan detective garda Eddie Connell was working in Dublin when he suffered injuries after the gun he was holding in the same holster worn by Colm Horkan was triggered in the holster. The whistleblowers are alleging that safety concerns about the holster were ignored by senior members of An Garda Síochána. They allege it was brought to the attention of senior members of the force over a year before that fateful night of 17 June 2020. They allege that the Garda Commissioner at the time, Drew Harris, effectively blocked safety reviews for this particular holster. When senior officers blew the whistle on the scandal and made a protected disclosure to the then Minister for Justice, she refused to have her Department investigate the matter despite the fact that the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner directed her Department to investigate it. Instead of doing so and following protocol and the law, she had that disclosure returned to An Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner. In so doing, she leaked the accuser’s name to the person against whom the allegation was made.

The man making the disclosure was detective superintendent Brian O’Reilly, a former head of the Garda Technical Bureau. His disclosure was sent back to An Garda Síochána to investigate because the Minister refused to do so. That is a very serious thing to happen. When the internal Garda unit responsible for investigating the protected disclosures tried to investigate the issues that had been raised, and there were many issues of serious allegations of wrongdoing in the force, Garda management tried to block those investigations and interfered with the protected disclosure process. Eventually the protected disclosure unit itself was effectively dismantled. The individuals involved in the unit, Dr. Donal Corcoran and Rose Sweeney, were so frustrated with the process they themselves made protected disclosures.

The Deputy’s time is up now. He had five minutes. An Teachta Gogarty.

Like most people in this country I have huge respect for the rank and file members of An Garda Síochána, who are decent hard-working people who put their safety on the line every single day and do not get paid enough, but as this motion highlights we are looking at an ongoing systemic failure within the higher procurement and management structures of the force.

Let us look at the facts. We had an administrative system that prioritised financial savings over human lives. How on earth does anyone think it is acceptable for a police force to award 500 marks for cost and only 400 marks for quality and safety specifications when buying standard issue firearm holsters? It does not make sense. It is a farce. What happens when you cut corners on safety standards? You get defective equipment issued to front-line officers leading directly to life-altering accidents and tragedy. We see the ultimate price paid in the horrific murder of detective garda Colm Horkan and injuries to garda Connell. It gets worse, however, because when people internally tried to raise flags about these issues and used the statutory protected disclosures process to say, “Gabh mo leithscéal, there is an issue with the holsters. There is an issue with half a million rounds of defective ammunition being dumped”, the system failed them and actively turned on the whistleblowers who were professionally penalised, sidelined and basically run out of their careers by senior management. This has happened before and we should have learned those lessons already.

The independent protected disclosures manager explicitly stated in June 2025 that major public safety questions remained unresolved. What did the powers that be do? They stripped the files away and closed them down anyway. That goes to the issue of political accountability in relation to the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, for example. The Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner gave an independent statutory direction for the Secretary General of the Department of justice to investigate the serious allegations against senior management, but instead of letting that happen the former Minister chose to invoke section 102B of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. The Government can say she had to follow that route but independent legal scholars like Dr. Lauren Kierans BL, cofounder of the European Whistleblowing Institute, have looked at the framework and said that the additional steps in the process are frustrating transparency. She is right because the extra steps did not find the truth; they acted as a screen. Former Attorney General and now Senator, Michael McDowell, has also questioned the reliance on this legislation and has basically called it a non-binding choice.

We have to ask what advice was given to the Minister to take this non-binding decision. This was a decision that left her exposed to multiple accusations because under section 102B a formal investigation into the Commissioner requires the explicit approval of the Government. It states the ombudsman commission may at the request of the Minister or of its own motion but "subject to the consent of the Minister given with the approval of the Government, investigate any matter that gives rise to a concern that the Garda Commissioner may have (a) committed an offence, or (b) behaved in a manner that would constitute serious misconduct."

The Government did not recommend an investigation into the former Commissioner, Drew Harris. It decided the high bar was not met and that it was not legally required to activate or pursue the route at all - it was completely optional. If the Minister did not recommend a GSOC investigation, what statutory authority did she or her colleagues have to take a protected disclosure away from her Secretary General and send it straight to An Garda Síochána? Section 102B gives her the power to request an Ombudsman probe. It does not give her a blank cheque to act as a delivery service for confidential files to be sent to senior management who may be the subject of an investigation or at least about whom questions may be asked. The consequence of that choice was a severe data breach in which the whistleblower's sensitive identifying details were sent directly, via email attachment, to senior gardaí, who were the very people being complained about, as the recent RTÉ documentary covered in detail. It makes an absolute mockery of whistleblower confidentiality. We cannot keep allowing the State apparatus to self-police and attack the whistleblower rather than deal with the message.

I support this motion. We need a full public inquiry and actions to ensure that these types of wrongs, when called out by whistleblowers in the future, are dealt with and reported properly. We do not have faith in the system as it stands and we need to renew that faith.

Tacaíonn Sinn Féin leis an rún seo agus fáiltim roimh an deis labhairt faoi na ceisteanna seo inniu. Sinn Féin has consistently called for transparency, accountability and independent scrutiny when serious issues raised by Garda whistleblowers have come before us, as well as the need for accountability in the overall effectiveness of the protected disclosures mechanisms in An Garda Síochána. It has to be said and the Minister needs to recognise that there is virtually no confidence that the protected disclosures regime in An Garda Síochána is functioning and that has serious implications.

I join others in paying tribute to Colm Horkan, but we need to be incredibly mindful in this House that the Horkan family has taken a significant and unprecedented step. The family of a garda killed in action has called for a public inquiry into the circumstances leading up to his death and that has to be taken seriously. That is why it is disappointing to see the Minister's amendment today, which essentially boils down to rejecting that call.

I join the Minister and others in saying that Stephen Silver is the person responsible for garda Colm Horkan's death. He was rightly convicted, but his family is also entitled to know whether the tragedy could have been prevented and whether concerns raised in advance through protected disclosures regarding Garda equipment were properly acted on. The family has set out a series of specific questions, which it made public, regarding procurement of gun holsters, the handling of complaints and protected disclosures, and the actions taken by Garda management and relevant authorities when concerns were first raised. The family has said, and I agree, that the questions can only be properly examined by an independent inquiry.

I am a little taken aback that the Minister has passed this on to Fiosrú and told the House that it is the forum that will resolve this issue. He knows, and we have heard countless pieces of evidence, that GSOC, throughout its existence, was seen not as an avenue for families to get truth or for the public to get answers, but as a delaying model. For example, we are both well aware of the case of Shane O'Farrell. The Minister knows that his predecessor in 2014 asked GSOC to carry out a public interest inquiry, exactly the same type of inquiry the Minister is suggesting is warranted in this case. He will know that inquiry was completed in 2018 and that today, in 2026, the family of Shane O'Farrell is before the courts trying to get access to the report of that public interest inquiry. The Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, the committee that has responsibility for this, has sought from Fiosrú the report of that public interest inquiry and Fiosrú has refused to provide it even to an Oireachtas committee. To suggest Fiosrú is a vehicle that will get answers is entirely disingenuous when all the evidence suggests it is a delaying tactic that will frustrate rather than facilitate the route to answers.

There are serious questions, which have been raised here and elsewhere, regarding the procurement of the holsters and how a particular saddlery received the contract. We and the public need to know whether procurement decisions were based on appropriate and objective assessment criteria. There is a key question regarding the handling of safety concerns raised about the holsters and whether the warnings raised through the protected disclosures system were properly acted on. These questions need to be answered.

We also need answers to questions about those who made the protected disclosures and how they were treated. Were the lessons we were told were learned after the treatment of Maurice McCabe actually learned? What is the current situation? We have been told that those who made protected disclosures have faced serious consequences for their jobs, careers and livelihoods. The issues they raised relate to public safety, the safety of members of An Garda Síochána, Garda equipment, firearms storage, procurement practices and oversight. In other words, they are serious issues. The State promised that whistleblowers would never again experience the treatment suffered by Maurice McCabe and the question we have to ask is whether things have changed.

Serious questions also remain regarding the handling by the former Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, of the protected disclosure and her role in this debacle. The House needs and deserves answers about what the Minister knew and when she knew it, what disclosures were brought to her attention, what actions she took, why concerns involving senior Garda figures were handed back to An Garda Síochána, what her role was in upholding the independence of the protected disclosures process and what measures, if any, she took to protect the disclosure. She has to come before the House to answer questions. We had the laughable situation yesterday of the Tánaiste, Deputy Harris, saying a Member should come before the House and make a statement in respect of his role in a charity. That Member has requested time to do that but at the same time the Tánaiste is standing in the way of a current Minister coming here, despite repeated requests, to answer questions about the safety of members of An Garda Síochána, what she did and when information was brought to her attention. That position is untenable and the fact the Minister has told me that he would do what she did if the situation were to occur again says to me that, far from lessons having been learned, we are back to square one.

We have a serious, fundamental issue in our public system, particularly in terms of An Garda Síochána, when people, at huge cost to themselves, decide to make a protected disclosure. The role of protected disclosures is to inform management, the Government and the public about potential risks in a system. They did that. They deserve to be commended for doing it and we collectively have an obligation to act upon it. There cannot be any more hiding. There cannot be hiding for the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in her role. She has to come before the House and answer the questions before us because, above all, the public and members of An Garda Síochána need answers and the Horkan family deserves answers. We are six years on. Questions have been raised on multiple occasions in this House. They deserve to be answered and the Minister cannot hide behind Fiosrú or anyone else. He has a responsibility to ensure those questions are answered.

I thank Aontú for bringing forward this motion on whistleblowers. Its primary focus is on whistleblowers in An Garda Síochána, but we have a bad history in this State in other departments with how we treat whistleblowers. In 2022, I raised the matter of a whistleblower in the south Kerry child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, Dr. Ankur Sharma, whose concerns about the over-medication and misdiagnosis of children were vindicated by the Maskey report. Dr. Sharma highlighted that children were prescribed dangerous amounts of medication by a junior doctor who was not being supervised. This led to the Maskey report, which showed that 227 children received risky care from a barely supervised junior doctor. The treatment of 13 other children by other doctors was also found to be risky with proof of significant harm to another 46 children. Dr. Sharma was ostracised in the HSE resulting in him leaving his post.

When the HSE struggled to recruit a consultant psychiatrist for Kerry, Dr. Sharma went back to the HSE and offered to fill the post of consultant psychiatrist in Kerry, only to be ignored. It is a measure of the man, which is why I am raising this again today, that despite his mistreatment by the HSE he was willing to return to help. He should have been commended and not ignored.

In relation to today's motion, there was meant to have been a turning point on how protected disclosures were dealt with within the Garda after Maurice McCabe. However, we have seen recently that Garda members who were connected to the protected disclosures unit have alleged they were forced out of office for protecting whistleblowers. These are the people who tried to raise serious concerns from inside An Garda Síochána. They have given decades of service and tried to fulfil their duty in challenging wrongdoing. Instead, they were sidelined, obstructed and penalised.

Even when gardaí raised concerns about firearms equipment, these were not properly investigated. Shortly afterwards, detective garda Colm Horkan was fatally shot because his murderer was able to get the gun from his holster, despite these concerns having been raised. The Horkan family has called for an independent public inquiry into detective garda Colm Horkan's death and the Government must listen to them. Such a tragedy cannot be allowed to happen again and the family has to be listened to.

If everything were rosy in the garden with the Garda, there would be no whistleblowers. However, we have seen reports this week that gardaí have been flagged for disciplinary referrals for making comments to the media nine times in the last year and a half. The GRA is extremely concerned that its elected members could be silenced by the threats of discipline and I have to agree with it. As the Minister knows, we had some really robust engagement with the GRA at the justice committee in relation to the ability of gardaí to pursue dangerous drivers, including cars, scramblers, scooters and e-bikes. We heard that as it stands, not one garda in this State is trained in pursuit, which is unacceptable in this day and age.

Following this pressure, the pressure after the M9 tragedy and the tragic death of Grace Lynch, the Garda Commissioner agreed to start training this year using the train-the-trainer method. Gardaí were to go to Britain to learn to become instructors so that they could train gardaí here to pursue cars, scramblers, scooters and e-bikes. It is a bit late in the day, but it is welcome nonetheless. We would hope that it would lead to more gardaí being trained as time goes by. However, at a recent public accounts committee meeting under questioning from my colleague Joanna Byrne, the Garda Commissioner could not confirm if gardaí will get the training to pursue scramblers, e-bikes and scooters. This issue has taken up a huge amount of debate in this House, at the committee and among the public, particularly after the death of Grace Lynch. It is astonishing that the Garda Commissioner could not confirm if gardaí will get this training.

When Joanna Byrne submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister for justice, she was informed that her question was disallowed because he had no responsibility for this matter. It is absolutely abhorrent for him to claim he has no responsibility for this matter. For me and for the public in general, this is simply not good enough. I am demanding clarity from the Minister. I ask him to confirm if the pursuit of scramblers, e-bikes and scooters will be part of this training. It is unfathomable that this would not happen.

We have two primary issues here. First is a family who need and very much deserve answers and, second, are the ongoing and very serious issues in An Garda Síochána when it comes to protected disclosures. We are now many years on from the very brave stance that Maurice McCabe took. That "Prime Time Investigates" programme clearly shows us that we are not very far on, if at all, from that time.

When speaking about an independent public inquiry, the Minister has said that we need the criminal proceedings to end and we need the inquest. However, it is important to be honest and clear. Neither the court case nor the appeal looked at the gun holster and I very much doubt that an inquest will either. I know the Horkan family have made that point. I presume they are not happy with an investigation being carried out by Fiosrú.

Putting all that to one side, if a member of An Garda Síochána sees something wrong and flags it, there is a fear that the member will be removed from their role or pay a price for that. That was shown as clear as day in the "Prime Time Investigates" programme. There is something very wrong with a workplace where someone sees something wrong but cannot do the right thing by flagging it. I do not believe that Fiosrú will answer the questions on that. That is an issue for all of us and it is an issue for every single member of the public. We need to see more done on this and we need to see a lot more done in relation to protected disclosures.

I challenge the Minister to find me one person who has made a protected disclosure and was allowed to continue in their job and flourish. I would challenge An Garda Síochána but also on a wider government basis whether just one person was allowed to continue and flourish in their careers once they made a protected disclosure.

Hear, hear.

When the Protected Disclosures Act was introduced, it was sold as legislation to protect people who speak up about wrongdoing. In its current application, all it is being used to do is to highlight and identify people who speak against wrongdoing. Once the person is identified, they can find themselves isolated, ostracised, discredited and indeed penalised in the most severe ways.

In 2020, Margaret Loftus made a protected disclosure to Fiosrú about issues concerning Garda handling of cases of domestic abuse. This disclosure through a court order was handed to the organisation and to the very people she made the disclosure about before it was even investigated. That disclosure is currently at recommendation stage and is being sent to the Garda Commissioner in the very near future, yet, Margaret Loftus, the person who made the protected disclosure, had no entitlement to see those recommendations or even know if they were implemented. After sticking with a hellish process for six years, she will never know what even became of it.

The fundamental purpose of protected disclosures should be to prevent wrongdoing, prevent harm and protect the public interest. Instead, many people who speak up feel it protects the institution first and the individuals second. The tragic death of Colm Horkan remains a stark reminder of what is at stake when concerns relating to public safety are not addressed effectively. Questions raised over equipment and risk management should always be examined with one objective over all others: preventing serious harm and saving lives. I support the Horkan family in their quest for a public inquiry. Any one of us who has lost a loved one in whatever circumstances wants to know the answer to the basic question: could it have been prevented?

A whistleblower system should be judged by whether people can speak up without fear, whether risks are addressed and whether lessons are learned. A society that punishes those who speak the truth does not have a whistleblower protection system and we should stop pretending that we have. It has a warning sign for everyone else to stay quiet and to keep their heads down if they want to keep their job. In its current form our protected disclosures system is protecting the very institutions that should be held to account, not the person who highlights the wrongdoing. This is under the watch of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and he has to correct it. Successive Ministers for justice claiming that this is not under their remit, and that nobody looks here, is totally wrong. This has to be corrected here and now.

We are back in the same place again. What do we expect for gardaí? We should expect that they have the resources, the necessary tools and sufficient backup to be able to do the work they do, which is about protecting the wider community.

We would expect the protected disclosures system to exist. If there are problems in An Garda Síochána, as with any other major organisation whose necessary work we need delivered, we need to be able to find them out and address them. What we do not need is what we have seen, namely, that those who have been brave enough to come forward and provide the necessary information have been let down badly by this Government. This is all about public safety. There are questions to be answered by the former justice Minister, Deputy McEntee, about providing information on a whistleblower directly to An Garda. I do not think anyone would think that this is a way to do business.

We cannot forget the family of Colm Horkan. When I think of Colm Horkan, I also think of Adrian Donohoe and Tony Golden. These are gardaí who have been killed carrying out their duty. What has the family of Colm Horkan looked for? It is unprecedented, but they want a public inquiry. In fairness, Deputy Carthy referred to a similar Fiosrú-type investigation and how it has failed the family of Shane O'Farrell. That is not good enough. We are failing gardaí at this point in time. A family out there requires answers. It is necessary that the Minister does his part. I cannot see that anything other than a public investigation and inquiry is going to deliver. This is not good enough. We have been in this place too many times before. It is the same story as it was with Maurice McCabe, and we have not moved on.

I first send my thoughts to the family of Detective Colm Horkan. I acknowledge Aontú for bringing forward the motion. It is incredibly important. Listening to the Minister's speech, something jumped out from it. He stated that on 27 February 2025, within his first month as Minister, he invoked section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act and referred the issues raised by Detective Superintendent O'Reilly to GSOC. Was that the right section? Section 102(5) concerns wrongdoing by Garda members. Section 102B refers to the Commissioner himself being investigated and requires Government consent. Why did the Minister choose section 102(5) and not the one actually within the remit? The Minister should check that.

I have sat down with Garda whistleblowers. I have listened to their accounts. I have heard their frustrations and discussed the extraordinary effort required to simply get serious concerns properly examined. A thought that stays with me long after those meetings is if this is what happens to people who speak up, why would the next person bother? Why would somebody put their career, livelihood and peace of mind at risk if they believe an institution will turn its attention toward them rather than toward the wrongdoing they have reported?

Before going further, I acknowledge those who have stepped forward. Some of them are in the Gallery. Brian O'Reilly and Donal Corcoran are people of immense courage and dignity. The Minister should meet them.

We have to establish how concerns about Garda equipment were handled, how disclosures were investigated and whether those raising them were properly protected. From my meetings with the whistleblowers, I have come away deeply concerned that what has reached public attention is the tip of the iceberg. Their brave accounts raise many questions that go far beyond a single piece of equipment or a single disputed decision. They raise questions about who gets listened to, who gets protected and what happens when somebody challenges a person with authority. We cannot decide every allegation on the floor of this House, which is precisely why we need an independent inquiry with the power to establish the facts, but we can recognise the seriousness of what has been put before us.

When people involved in the administration of the protected disclosures system itself raise concerns about its operations, the Government should ask how that happened and what it says about the safeguards we were told were in place. We have been here before. After the treatment of Maurice McCabe, nobody in political leadership can credibly say they did not understand the consequences of failing a Garda whistleblower. We know what institutional defensiveness can do. We know how damaging it is when a person reporting a problem comes to be treated as the problem, yet we are again hearing accounts of interference, of professional consequences and of concerns left completely unresolved. How many times must people come before us describing the same culture before we accept that legislation alone will not be enough? A reporting channel means very little if people cannot trust where the report will end up. A protection means very little if somebody has to spend years fighting to make it effective. This culture survives when political leadership accepts procedural assurances without demanding evidence that the system is working.

Tackling this failure has to begin with accountability at ministerial level. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, should appear before this House or the justice committee to answer questions about her handling of these matters, as has been requested by the whistleblowers with whom I have sat. She stated that she followed the legislation and the advice provided to her. That position should be examined alongside decisions taken, the information available and concerns raised by the whistleblowers. What did the Minister know? When did she know it? What action followed? These are simple questions. Where a disclosure concerns senior Garda management, how is the independence of its handling assured? Where officials are briefing a Minister, what safeguards exist to identify any conflict of interest? Who checked that the information that reached the Minister was accurate and complete? Changing portfolios does not remove the obligation to account for decisions taken in office.

The forthcoming review of protected disclosures legislation must also seek the participation of whistleblowers. Their experience has to shape its conclusion. For our part, we will continue to work with those who seek to expose the truth. What we are talking about here are people who we trust to stand on the wall. They are people of immense courage. We often talk about how lucky we are in this Chamber, because we want more gardaí. We want people in the force. We have a good system of gardaí who we want on our streets, but there is also a scenario where people who have raised issues, people of immense integrity, are clearly experiencing continued penalisation. That is not an accusation I make lightly. I stood several times over the last couple of months with Dr. Donal Corcoran and Detective Brian O'Reilly. They are people of huge dignity. As a result of their stance, they are now living on social welfare. That cannot be allowed to continue.

Hear, hear.

The Minister and I often clash, but I do not doubt for a second that he is a decent person. What is happening to people who stepped forward - they go by the name of whistleblowers but they are actually incredible people - is wrong, and wrong is wrong. We can all talk about legislation and systems, but if the Minister stood in front of Donal or Brian, he could not help but see a system failing and come to a conclusion that this system, which was built perhaps ten years ago, was simply designed to fail because it is failing so consistently. The impact it is having on people's lives is devastating. These are people who were in uniform. I would not want anyone other than the people I have sat with in meeting rooms protecting this State and our communities. I have heard their testimonies and listened to their voices. These people have courage and dignity. They have been removed from the profession they were born to do.

We should be unimaginably proud that Dr. Donal Corcoran and Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly are the people who are defending our communities. I can think of no better people. They stepped forward and did the right thing, but are now continuously being penalised. Is anybody in the Department or An Garda Síochána investigating penalisation? That is a continual wrong. I ask the Minister to meet these individuals, hear their testimonies and investigate the continual penalisation.

We want people to step forward and put their hands up. The stories and testimony we are hearing from the whistleblowers are enormous. We would not be able to investigate every single one of them in this Chamber. We need an independent investigation, not only to establish accountability but also to make things better for people whom we trust to serve our communities. My final request is that the Minister meet Dr. Corcoran and Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly and do something to stop the continued penalisation.

I welcome the motion. I am glad to see wide Opposition support for this issue of protected disclosures. Whistleblowing in Ireland has a chequered history. As we have seen far too often, a deep tribalism can seep into institutions in this State, rather than an objective assessment of the facts. This can breed a culture of denial, cover-up and retribution. Whistleblowing takes great courage and perseverance, sometimes over many years. It can take a great toll on those who do it. In standing up for what is right, integrity and fairness, people are often treated wrongly, consistently undermined and deprived of any fair justice or process. Whispers ensue in institutions. People are moved around, power structures change and a culture of bullying can fester. That experience, as too many in this country are familiar with, takes an extreme toll on the whistleblower, their mental health and their families.

The questions before us in this motion are very grave.

There are allegations or insinuations of wrongdoing in the upper echelons of An Garda Síochána. If what I have been told privately is true, it would send shock waves across the political system and across the country. It may yet threaten a Government. Our job as custodians of public integrity is to seek out the full truth, even if it is uncomfortable and leads us to difficult realisations about our country and those who are meant to protect and serve it. History has shown us that initial disclosures can merely mark the beginnings of revelations as deeper concerns, including criminality, emerge during subsequent investigations.

I am disappointed the Government has chosen to oppose this motion and I want to call out two lines in its amendment which are worth emphasising to the general public. One line says: "the Government is satisfied that there are robust procedures and protections for those who make disclosures". From what we know about how past disclosures have been handled and from what I have heard privately about these cases, I do not see how any government could possibly be satisfied with the protected disclosure system or have confidence in it. The other line says: "An Garda Síochána have emphasised that ... all allegations made under the Protected Disclosures Acts to An Garda Síochána are treated seriously, and examined for any potential disciplinary or criminal matters that may arise". While I would like to believe that is true, the Government may rue the day it made that declaration. An investigation is required to establish exactly what happened with these disclosures and understand how seriously they were treated. If the truth emerges that there was any refusal to examine any disciplinary or criminal matters in An Garda Síochána, it will cause a political crisis this Government will not survive.

I thank Aontú for this timely motion. I also acknowledge and thank other Members of the House for coming on this journey with me. I have been at this for two years, as the Minister is well aware. It is very unusual that everybody in the Opposition is on the same page on this. That tells us how serious it is.

What the Minister has announced today in relation to Fiosrú and the holsters is another layer of insult on injury for the Horkan family. I have spoken to them. They describe it as a nonsense. It is a complete nonsense, an attempt by the Government to kick this can down the road and get it off the agenda. The allegations of Luke Rochford were referred to GSOC. What happened? GSOC contacted Garda management and could not get co-operation. It then contacted Luke Rochford and told him it was discontinuing the investigation because it could not get co-operation. Now the Minister is referring it again. It is a joke.

Here are the two holsters. Look at them lying in my hands. This is the leather; this is the stitching. That should be the Fiosrú investigation in one go. That was holster worn by Eddie Connell and this is the one worn by Colm Horkan. They are the exact same, and not fit for purpose. This did not even cover the back of the gun of Ed Connell. Read Mick Clifford's article if you do not want to believe me. They are dangerous and known to be defective. Senior gardaí knew about these holsters and their defectiveness. Hundreds of gardaí refused to use them and bought their own. Garda management knew but did not care; it only began caring after these two incidents. Garda leadership had been warned about it numerous times by Luke Rochford. The superintendent in the Garda college in Templemore had warned them, her staff had warned them and video footage from the firearms training unit had warned them. What happened? Nothing. Brian O'Reilly kept trying to warn that they be taken down after these incidents. What happened to Luke Rochford for bringing forward these issues? He got crucified, but he will have his day. He will have justice. His case has been stopped 30 times. It will never happen because An Garda Síochána cannot afford for it to happen.

I only have time to raise two issues with the Minister. First, why were these two holsters sent on two different pathways for investigation? This is the critical issue the Horkan family wants to know. After the Ed Connell incident, GSOC took primacy of the scene, GNTB provided forensic services to GSOC and the exhibits from the incident were delivered to GNTB for forensic examination. Subsequent forensic analysis of the holster identified significant defects. That is all clear. That investigation is done.

On 17 June, after Colm Horkan was murdered, GNTB got to the scene, including Superintendent O'Reilly. They focused on the holster, given the concerns at the scene. Exhibits were collected, bagged and tagged, went to Forensic Science Ireland for DNA and fingerprint analysis, and should have been given over to the GNTB but never arrived. Why? That is the critical question in all this.

In February 2024, three years later, the holster was given to two non-experts, non-ballisticians who did not have forensic analysis or meet ISO standards. Why? It is clear this was a deliberate action by Garda management and that is what the Minister should be focusing on. Why the two different pathways? Why the cover-up? It is a cover-up. That is why the family want the investigation. It is a critical question. Why bypass the only experts in An Garda Síochána who are qualified to do this investigation? It will never be answered through the pathway the Minister has put forward. It can only be answered through an inquiry.

The second question is how protected disclosures were managed by two Ministers, including the Minister for justice, Deputy O'Callaghan. Brian O'Reilly sent his protected disclosure to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in September 2023. It impugned the Commissioner. The Minister sent it to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner. In October 2023, the OPDC set a statutory declaration that this be dealt with by the Secretary General of the Department of Justice. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, then directed the investigation be removed from the Secretary General and redirected to An Garda Síochána, thereby usurping the OPDC's statutory direction and revealing Brian O'Reilly's identity. In doing so, she acted without legal authority and directly interfered with a serious and significant protected disclosure. Since then, the Minister has argued - and she is now supported by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan - that she did not reveal Brian O'Reilly's identity as his solicitor had already corresponded with Drew Harris. This fails to recognise that Brian O'Reilly's correspondence with her was completely separate. The cover letter states it is a protected disclosure in its own right. The confidentiality attached to this letter was completely breached by the Minister, Deputy McEntee. There is nothing in section 16 of the Protected Disclosures Act that gives the Minister legal authority to disclose that person's identity, even if the person she exposed him to is aware he has previously made protected disclosures. Additionally, despite the fact the current Minister has consistently said he cannot speak about protected disclosures, he amazingly has the capacity to vocalise aspects of Brian O'Reilly's protected disclosures. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, who is sitting there, has made public that he sent Brian O'Reilly's protected disclosure to Fiosrú when he came into office. He also alleges that Mr. O'Reilly has failed to engage. The Minister is completely misleading people by saying this. This is not accurate and is totally selective. It is dangerous territory for the Minister now - very dangerous territory.

This is what really happened. Prior to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, taking office on 17 January 2024, a Department official endeavoured to move Brian O'Reilly's protected disclosure out of the Department. They wanted to get rid of it before the Minister took office, really, despite the fact they had not statutory power to do so. Fourteen months after the Secretary General's appointment to investigate, Brian O'Reilly was told to go to Fiosrú and start again. He never provided any such consent. Despite this, on 27 February, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, sent the disclosures to Fiosrú. This is a fatal error. The Minister has now also acted without legal authority. It means two Ministers have acted without Brian O'Reilly's consent or legal authority. What makes it worse is the Minister did not even tell Brian O'Reilly until March. For 16 months, Brian O'Reilly, whose protected disclosures had been statutorily directed for investigation by the OPDC to the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, was ignored by the same Secretary General, ignored by the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and ignored by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan. He was given none of his statutory entitlements over that period of time or since.

What is worse is that the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, deliberately sent it to Fiosrú under section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act despite knowing his protected disclosure related to the Garda Commissioner. However, it could not be investigated under this section. He should have done it under section 102B of the Garda Síochána Act but that would have meant being passed by Cabinet and the Minister was not willing to do that.

Let me be clear: there was never any legal or moral obligation on Brian O'Reilly to engage in any of this with Fiosrú. The process was locked in time once the OPDC made its statutory appointment. Everything since then has been flawed. I am now clearly saying that the Ministers, Deputies McEntee and O'Callaghan, have both acted without legal authority and contrary to the interests of the disclosure, in this case, of Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste need to take note - there will be consequences.

The Minister has dismissed the call for a public inquiry at this stage. He has made his decision in relation to Fiosrú. The family will not accept that. It has been described as "nonsense". Fiosrú and its predecessor GSOC have already failed in this. The Minister can dismiss the Opposition's call, collectively, for a public inquiry but he cannot dismiss the calls of the Horkan family whom he met last week. Why? It is because their brother, their son, was murdered and the equipment he was wearing was not right. This was warned of well in advance. It is also the cover-up afterwards. Now, both the Minister and the former Minister are impugned, as I just outlined, for their actions as Minister for justice.

I said on 25 March that the issue of these holsters and protected disclosures would haunt the Ministers, Deputies McEntee and O'Callaghan, this Government and the previous Government. I can tell them now, today, that the nightmare is only beginning.

Before we move back to the Government, I remind Members that parliamentary privilege should be exercised in a responsible manner and Members should avoid making allegations against identifiable persons who are not in a position to respond. Members should also exercise particular care in their contributions and refrain from naming individuals, including any person who may have made a protected disclosure. I call the Minister, Deputy McEntee.

I begin by echoing what I think every person in this House has said today, namely, that Colm Horkan was an exemplar of public service and his contribution to serving and protecting this State will never be forgotten. The family of Detective Garda Colm Horkan suffered a devastating loss when he was murdered while on duty in Castlerea in 2020. Indeed, my first act as Minister for Justice in 2020 was to visit his colleagues and family following his murder and to pay my respects and tribute to him. I again offer my sincerest condolences to them.

I also want to say that I am, as is everyone in this House, completely committed to a trusted and effective protected disclosure system. Any person who wishes to raise or make a protected disclosure should be confident that they can raise issues within their workplace or organisation, that this can be done confidentially and that they will be treated fairly. I have always, in my capacity as an elected representative and as Minister for Justice, complied with the protected disclosure legislation. Also as Minister for Justice, I introduced new measures to strengthen Garda accountability and oversight. I enacted legislation to establish a new and strengthened independent oversight body for An Garda Síochána, Fiosrú. I enhanced independent oversight of Garda management by establishing a new Garda board and I tasked the Garda audit committee with examining the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of Garda protected disclosure procedures. These changes give the Garda board and audit committee important oversight roles in relation to the operation of the protected disclosure system in An Garda Síochána.

Deputies will be aware that the Protected Disclosures Act precludes Ministers from discussing or acknowledging protected disclosures. This is to ensure the integrity of any investigation of a protected disclosure is upheld, to ensure the anonymity and safety of those who make protected disclosures and are subject to them and to ensure others are confident they can come forward into the future.

However, in recent months, in particular following the airing of the RTÉ programme, several claims have been made about me, including in this motion. I have sought legal advice and based on that legal advice, I will today outline the action I took in relation to one specific protected disclosure. I want to be clear. Of the four individuals features in the RTÉ programme, one case is before the courts so I will not comment on that case. Two of the other people featured did not make protected disclosures to me or the Department, so I will not refer to them. In relation to the fourth person featured, Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly, a number of inaccurate and unsubstantiated allegations have been made about my handling of his protected disclosure in the Aontú motion today, by the Opposition and by some members of the media. For that reason, and on the basis that Detective Superintendent O'Reilly has asked that I speak about it, while I will not discuss the contents of the protected disclosure made by Detective Superintendent O'Reilly, I am going to lay out precisely the steps I took in handling it.

On 20 September 2023, I received a protected disclosure from solicitors acting on behalf of Detective Superintendent O'Reilly. On the same date, his solicitor sent a more detailed account of the same matters directly to the Garda Commissioner and copied that correspondence to the Department of Justice and to me, as Minister. In the letter directly to me, Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's solicitors stated: "Our client wishes to be informed of whether or not the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána has referred to your office the protected disclosures containing finer details, as made by our client." In the letter sent by Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's solicitor to the Garda Commissioner, it was stated: "It is clear that our client has made protected disclosures relating to a number of matters." At no stage did I or my Department acknowledge the existence of or send the protected disclosure or any material relating to the protected disclosure to the Garda Commissioner and at no point have I engaged with the Garda Commissioner. The only instance where Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's identity was exposed to the Garda Commissioner was in letters from solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. O'Reilly.

In accordance with the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended, the Department of Justice referred the disclosure on 20 September 2023, the same day it was received, to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner for consideration. This was the appropriate approach. It is important to note again that in a subsequent letter to the Garda Commissioner which my Department was copied on, the solicitor representing Detective Superintendent O'Reilly stated: "We note the referral by the Minister for Justice of our client's protected disclosure to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner."

On 3 October 2023, the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner referred the disclosure back to the Department of Justice. In doing so, the commissioner considered whether there was a prescribed person within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (Disclosure to Prescribed Persons) Order 2020 to whom the disclosure could appropriately be sent. Having concluded that no such prescribed person could be identified, the OPDC also considered whether the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was an appropriate recipient for the protected disclosure. It is important to highlight that the request from Mr. O'Reilly was that this was treated as a protected disclosure, not as a complaint. The OPDC noted that GSOC could not investigate the Garda Commissioner under section 102B of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 without authorisation from the Minister for Justice and the approval of Government. The OPDC therefore determined that the Secretary General of the Department of Justice was the appropriate recipient as another suitable person for the purpose of the Protected Disclosures Act. Under section 10E of the Act, the recipient of a disclosure is required to conduct an initial assessment and determine the most appropriate course of action.

It should be noted at this point that in a letter to me, dated 13 October 2023, solicitors acting for Detective Superintendent O'Reilly wrote to the Department objecting to any investigation being conducted by the Secretary General. Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's solicitor said that the Secretary General "is not the appropriate and proper person to investigate wrongdoing alleged by our client." In a later letter to me, his solicitor requested that Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's protected disclosure be referred by the Policing Authority or GSOC. It should be noted that while GSOC is a prescribed body under the Protected Disclosures Act, the Policing Authority is not.

Following consideration of the disclosure, the Secretary General submitted an e-submission to me on 19 December setting out three options. The first was a referral to GSOC; however, the advice provided to me by the Department was that there was no legal basis on which to seek Government approval for a GSOC investigation of the Garda Commissioner as the disclosure did not identify specific acts or omissions by the Commissioner that could be investigated under section 102B.

It is important to say at this point that a previous similar protected disclosure had been sent to GSOC having not met the requirements under section 102B, and it was not accepted by GSOC. I was advised that sending this protected disclosure to GSOC would have resulted in a similar outcome and delayed the process.

The second option was that the Department itself would investigate the matter raised. The assessment was that this would amount to the Minister and the Department investigating An Garda Síochána, an approach for which there was no precedent and which risked encroaching upon the operational independence of the Garda Commissioner. Again, Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's solicitors had objected to the Secretary General investigating this issue.

The third option was referral to the office of protected disclosures within An Garda Síochána. This option was recommended on the basis that there was an established process and recent precedent for dealing with disclosures through that office. Having considered that advice, I agreed with that recommendation. Accordingly, on 21 December 2023, the Department referred the protected disclosure, clearly marked as such, to the head of the office of protected disclosures within An Garda Síochána. Again, at no stage did I send this protected disclosure to the Garda Commissioner as the Aontú motion falsely claims. I worked on the basis, as any of us here would, that the head of the office of protected disclosures would treat this referral in accordance with the legislation.

On 10 April 2024, the matter was referred back to the Department of justice by An Garda Síochána, that stated, upon receipt of separate advice, that several of the issues contained within the protected disclosure were assessed to fall outside its remit. Following further engagement with the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, the Department was advised that two options remained available. First, that with the consent of Detective Superintendent O'Reilly, the matters raised could be referred to GSOC as a complaint rather than as a protected disclosure; or second, that Detective Superintendent O'Reilly could be advised to make a protected disclosure directly to GSOC. A recommendation to write to Detective Superintendent O'Reilly outlining these options was approved by me on 15 January. The Department was subsequently informed that the solicitor was no longer acting on Mr. O'Reilly's behalf but that the solicitor would pass the correspondence on to him. As the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, has set out in his speech, he subsequently referred the issues raised by Detective Superintendent O’Reilly to GSOC as a complaint.

To be very clear, the disclosure was referred to the head of the protected disclosure office within An Garda Síochána, having received the recommendation. At no point was it sent by me or the Department of justice to the Garda Commissioner. I have set out the facts in relation to the steps I took in response to the protected disclosure made by Detective Superintendent O’Reilly. Every decision that I made, I made in the public interest. My objective at all times was to ensure truth and accountability, and fairness and safety for all involved. This should not distract from the tragedy that we are discussing today and that is the murder of Detective Colm Horkan. The loss of Detective Colm Horkan was devastating. I support any further measures that are now being taken to provide clarity on the matters discussed. I commend the countermotion to the House.

Colm Horkan was murdered in 2020 while wearing a Garda holster provided to him by An Garda Síochána from an equestrian saddlery in Kildare. It was provided not by a firearm specialist by from a saddlery; horse tack on the hip of an armed garda. This warning came first to us in 2019 via whistleblowers who warned Garda management that the holsters were dangerous. One week before Colm was murdered, a garda in the Israeli ambassador's residence suffered a life-changing injury when his pistol discharged. A senior garda alleged at the time that the holsters may have been to blame. How did the Horkan family learn of that? They learned of it not from the Minister's office, not from An Garda Síochána, but from a newspaper. They were promised an apology by the former Commissioner Drew Harris. We are still waiting for that apology to the family. Last Thursday, the Minister met the family and sat down with them. He said he will not commit to an inquiry. Instead, he has asked Fiosrú to investigate. Fiosrú, by the way, is the same body that was warned about the holsters in 2019. It is like the old saying, "Ask my brother am I a liar?" It does not make sense. I have come to note in this State that the crime is not about wrongdoing; the crime in this State is about telling the truth. We only need to ask Brian O'Reilly in the Gallery here, who warned about the holster too.

In December 2023, the Department of justice apologised to two different Garda whistleblowers whose details were wrongly passed on, and promises were made by that Department that new checks and balances would be implemented and put in place immediately. Thirteen days later, the Department sent the Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly's protected disclosure straight back to An Garda Síochána, the very people on whom he was doing the whistleblowing. It does not make sense. Thirteen days is the shelf-life of the promises of the Department of justice.

Let us now look at the ammunition. Faulty ammunition rounds made by an Italian company, which was willing to take them back four years earlier, instead stayed in circulation for over four years in the Garda response unit, the armed support unit and were carried every day by up to 1,500 to 2,000 members of An Garda Síochána. This was faulty ammunition that can jam, can misfire and that could take a garda's life. Why was there no recall? It was because an internal report worried about the reputation of An Garda Síochána. It did not worry about keeping people safe. It did not worry about the front-line gardaí who were carrying this ammunition. It worried about garda reputation. It put reputation before lives. To add insult to injury, on top of that those set of bullets were destroyed later at a cost to this State of €160,000, despite the fact that the company was willing to take it back four years earlier.

Let us look at the gun parts. Guns belonging to a private gun club in Kildare were brought to the Garda armoury in Dublin. They were repaired. The parts were imported under the licence that the then Minister for justice signed off in the belief that they were for Garda use. They were paid for by the taxpayer. The guns were repaired and they were driven back to the gun club in a private car belonging to a member of An Garda Síochána. Two separate investigations have confirmed this. Now, we learn today that the DPP will not prosecute. That is the story of this country. Nobody pays and nobody is answerable. That is why we are calling for an inquiry today.

Let us look at the two Garda helicopters that were ordered to the sum of €20 million that have never flown over Irish airspace and probably will never. This is not through bad luck or bad decisions but through stupidity and ignorance. We should follow those stories of holsters, ammunition, firearm stores and gun parts. Let us be fair about it; it all leads to one particular door. It leads to the door of Superintendent Liam White, who was responsible for the Garda firearms and responsible for procurement. Detective Superintendent O'Reilly has told the courts that the owner of the saddlery and Superintendent White are neighbours. I wonder has anyone asked the question as to whether they are both members of the particular gun club in Kildare. I suspect we might find a very interesting answer to that. It is about time that this superintendent and previous Commissioners are put under oath in public to give those answers and to tell the truth about things.

The Minister said that it is not within his role to discuss such matters. I have a newsflash for him; he is the Minister for justice. I lost my confidence in the previous Minister for justice. I have told her that and I have been honest in this House. However, I am beginning to lost confidence in the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, as well. I believe him to be an honourable man. He can restore the confidence of this side of the House in him by putting this inquiry together and by making sure an inquiry with teeth examines this. We can bring the former Commissioner Drew Harris and Superintendent Liam White before us, it can all be discussed and everything can be out in the open. The Horkan family has waited six years. Colm Horkan gave his life to this State. At the very least, this State owes his family the truth.

I call on an Teachta Tóibín to conclude the debate.

I am absolutely shocked by the Minister's response to this motion. The Minister has completely ignored the substance of the allegations that were made in this motion. It is as if the speech was actually written in a parallel universe. Ignoring allegations does not make them go away, or does it? Is that actually the modus operandi of the corruption that we see at the heart of senior gardaí at the moment? The Minister is ignoring the allegations, not accepting them, stopping them, not allowing them get investigated and hoping they will go away but they are not going away. They are not going away for a number of reasons, most importantly because of the people behind what has happened in relation to this wrongdoing. These gardaí and this family are not going to allow this just disappear and go away. Incredibly, another whistleblower at the heart of this crisis was arrested after blowing the whistle, and the State sought to prosecute that individual. I also put on record in the Dáil today that a litany of mistakes were made by the Government and a litany of mistakes and wrongdoing were done by An Garda Síochána in relation to this.

There is clear evidence of that that I have put on the record of the Dáil.

There are grievous wrongs happening here. This is a grievous wrong to the family of Colm Horkan as it seeks to hide the truth from his family. A grievous wrong is being done to the Garda, and it sends a message to anybody in the force in the future to stay quiet, shut up and keep your head down. This virtually guarantees the dysfunction of the Garda management into the future and virtually guarantees that great wrongs will be done, possibly to the lives of individuals working in that force and possibly to civilians as well. The Minister's contribution here is a continuation of the corruption that led to this horrendous tragedy.

Fiosrú is not the location for this investigation. GSOC, was told about the faulty holsters before the murder of Detective Horkan. GSOC did not take action at that time. GSOC cannot be seen as an independent arbiter of the truth in this issue.

Hear, hear. It is impossible.

The Minister admitted an investigation of Brian O'Reilly was sent to Fiosrú without his consent and contrary to the law.

The Minister did not deal with the 108-page document and all the unanswered questions related to it. He did not deal with the question as to why they were shut down. He did not deal with the protected disclosure unit, which was shut down, an unprecedented action by any Government or organisation in the history of the State. He completely ignored the actions of the former Minister for justice, Deputy McEntee. He ignored the questions as to why the former Minister for justice sent a protected disclosure to the Garda Síochána, the head of whom was Drew Harris, and why she publicised the name of the whistleblower. She started her contribution today by saying she has a responsibility to protect the anonymity of the whistleblowers and she herself publicised the names of the whistleblowers in the emails she sent. The fact that in his contribution the current Minister failed to address these issues breaks any confidence that any investigation he authorises will address these questions. The problem at the heart of this is that organisations punish whistleblowers to protect the rank-and-file individuals of those organisations. The Minister has also done that here today.

At the heart of this situation is a grieving family, a family broken-hearted at the loss of a great man. Gardaí have also lost their hard-working and honest colleague. The Minister has refused our demand for an independent investigation. It is one thing to do that to elected representatives here but for a Minister for justice to refuse the request of the family of a fallen garda for an investigation is a defining moment in the history of this Republic. I urge the Minister at this late stage to reverse from his damaging amendment. The moral weight on his shoulders today is immense. Forget about Aontú's request or that of any other political party here. Listen to the family's request and hold a full public, independent investigation into what happened to their loved one.

The division is deferred until the weekly division time this evening.

I welcome Margaret Loftus from Mayo who is here with Deputy Mary Lou McDonald.

Ní féidir deireadh a chur leis an tseirbhís monatóireachta CCTV i Luimneach. Is cosaint thábhachtach í don phobal agus caithfidh an Rialtas leanúint ar aghaidh ag cur an maoiniú buan atá ag teastáil ar fáil chun an tseirbhís ríthábhachtach seo a choimeád ar oscailt.

The country is still reeling from the horrific murders of four members of the English family, including two precious young children, in a petrol bomb attack on their home last month. This catastrophic and barbaric incident in Waterford put focus on the devastating consequences of violent organised crime and the escalating scourge of drug debt intimidation. In the early hours of yesterday morning, five adults and two children were rushed to hospital following yet another arson attack on a family home, this time here in Dublin. Families are held to ransom by drug gangs through threats, extortion and violence. They live every day with a sense of fear in communities across Ireland. There is anger that Government is not responding with force or purpose to keep communities safe.

Limerick has suffered the torment, violence and consequences of organised drug crime and drug debt intimidation. The community spent decades working to overcome this scourge. Limerick understands how investing in community safety can really turn the tide, yet as communities look to Government for greater support and protection, it provides the exact opposite. It removes funding for one of Limerick's most important and most successful community protection services. The Limerick CCTV monitoring service was established in response to the violence that plagued communities. It monitors hundreds of cameras across the city and county. It is a vital resource for An Garda Síochána and for the community. It prevents crime and allows for incidents to be responded to. It is a proven and highly successful initiative that has taken years of work to develop. It is at the very core of Limerick's safety infrastructure.

The service faces a funding shortfall of approximately €660,000 for 2027. The Department of local government is cutting the funding it has provided for years. The Department of justice refuses to take on funding responsibility. As things stand, just two days before Christmas, the doors will shut, hundreds of cameras will shut down and this vital crime prevention service will be lost to the people of Limerick. The Taoiseach should make no mistake; the big winner here will be the organised crime gangs that are seeking any opportunity to reassert themselves.

Stripping the people of Limerick of this vital community safety service is a dangerous and disgraceful dereliction of the Government's duty. The Government has funded Limerick's CCTV monitoring service for decades. It must continue to fund it. There can be no excuses. We need a crystal clear commitment from the Taoiseach today. Does he accept that the closure of Limerick's CCTV service would be devastating? Does he accept that it cannot happen? Does he accept that the Government has a responsibility to provide the funding to keep it open? Will he now intervene directly and guarantee the €660,000 required to keep this service operational for 2027? Furthermore, will he commit to establishing a permanent multi-annual funding arrangement for this community's safety?

Tá gach iarracht á déanamh ag an Rialtas maidir leis an méid dúnmharaithe agus foréigin atá ar siúl ar fud na tíre ag daoine áirithe. Tá níos mó áiseanna agus airgid curtha ar fáil arís i mbliana don Roinn dlí agus cirt agus do na Ranna eile chun pobal na tíre a choimeád slán. Níl aon amhras ach go bhfuil brú ar dhaoine agus go bhfuil deacrachtaí agus dúshláin faoi leith ann.

People are extremely angry, frustrated and shocked at the level of recklessness with which some criminals, particularly those involved in the area of drugs, behave in murdering, injuring and intimidating people and in endeavouring to undermine cohesion within communities. The Government is very clear that there will be no tolerance of that kind of behaviour. As the Deputy will know, An Garda Síochána implements a national anti-drugs strategy through Operation Tara. The focus of that operation is to disrupt, dismantle and prosecute drug trafficking networks at the local, national and international levels. The Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau leads in tackling all forms of drug trafficking and the supply of illicit drugs in Ireland. The consumption of drugs is a societal issue. It is far more widespread than it should be. There is an onus on all those who take drugs to realise that there is a very sordid, murderous and violent background to the provision and supply of drugs in our society.

We have initiatives such as Operation Fógra, the drug-related intimidation reporting programme, and the Drug Related Intimidation and Violence engagement, DRIVE, programme, which is a national inter-agency initiative funded by the Departments of Health and justice. An Garda Síochána and the Minister for justice are extremely focused on dealing with the levels of intimidation that certain drug criminals are engaging in. The DRIVE programme brings together law enforcement, health services, social services and community organisations to address drug-related intimidation through a co-ordinated and victim-centred approach. Since its launch, more than 800 individuals have received training across 24 drug and alcohol task force areas.

The Deputy raised the issue of the CCTV system in Limerick. She indicated that it has been in operation for quite a number of years now.

It is decades.

Exactly. At national level, there has been no pulling back from funding CCTV-----

There has.

There has.

You are closing it.

I can look at the specifics of the case but, on the €660,000, in my view, it is within the remit of the local authority and others to ensure that does not happen by Christmas. Funding to Government Departments, local authorities and across the board has now increased. CCTV systems have been in place for a long time and are included in the base funding allocations. There should not be an issue in respect of it.

Last year, the local authority bailed this service out but the reality is that for all of the rhetoric, words, tea and sympathy that the Taoiseach will offer to communities in Waterford, Limerick and elsewhere, he is not serious about resourcing communities and community safety. It is beyond shocking and scandalous that the Limerick CCTV service, which has been so successful and has kept communities that have really suffered safe for so long, will be shut down for the sum of €660,000, yet that is what the community is facing two days before Christmas. Will the Taoiseach make it clear that he is intervening in this and that he will speak to the Departments, exercise his authority and make sure that Limerick, the community and people are not left at the hands of violence and intimidation-----

The Taoiseach will respond.

-----because the Government could not come up with €660,000?

Hear, hear.

The Government is supporting community safety very strongly. The community safety fund, for example, plays a key role in helping communities become more resilient to crime, and an allocation of €4.84 million was recently distributed through the community safety fund to 56 community safety projects nationwide.

Invariably, on a whole range of issues, local authorities will make the case for additional funding and invariably it will come to the floor of this House, and I will be asked to intervene in every local authority area and on every issue. I will get the backdrop to this, but let us be very clear too that €660,000 is a very realisable sum of sum of money-----

Of course it is. That is the point.

-----and there is no need for anything to close by Christmas.

Is the Taoiseach committing to it not closing?

Two weeks ago, I asked the Taoiseach to stand up for Cork University Hospital, CUH, and end the unworkable and unsafe recruitment restrictions that are undermining patient care. The Taoiseach responded with barely controlled outrage. He said to me, "You have some nerve". I have reflected since on why the Taoiseach had that reaction. I do not doubt his personal and political attachment to CUH. As Minister for Health, he oversaw major investment there. I have my own connection with the hospital. The legendary cardiac surgeon Aonghus O'Donnell treated my father and extended his life by many years. My children were born in the maternity hospital. I worked in CUH as a psychologist.

Nobody questions the Taoiseach's attachment to CUH, but it is fair to question how in touch he is with what is happening there now because increasingly he looks detached, weak and defensive on this issue. He is unwilling to challenge a Minister for Health who discredits CUH at every opportunity and is using selective recruitment and trolley figures stripped of context about demand, complexity and long-standing staffing and bed shortages. Rather than challenging the Minister, the Taoiseach is providing her with political cover. It is relatively easy to scapegoat a hospital CEO who has sounded the alarm about what is happening at CUH, but it is much harder when nine clinical directors reinforce her account, writing to the Taoiseach about the Minister's misrepresentation of CUH, the damage to staff morale, recruitment and retention, and the need for an independent staffing assessment.

I have received an extremely disturbing account of what happened at CUH last Thursday and Friday. With emergency capacity overwhelmed, cancer operations were cancelled at short notice. Women admitted for mastectomies, some already in hospital gowns, were sent home. Colon, brain and prostate cancer operations were also cancelled. Imagine the distress of those patients. These are the consequences of the Minister's hardline attitude to CUH and her refusal to reckon with the reality of staffing shortages and overcrowding.

The Government's plan has identified CUH as having the country's largest adult inpatient and critical care bed deficit. The hospital's CEO and clinical directors have urgently sought 172 priority posts. According to the clinical directors' letter to the Taoiseach last week, only seven had been approved, yet the Minister berates CUH for underperforming while the Government restricts recruitment. The Taoiseach helped develop this hospital and now he is standing by while the Minister repeatedly undermines it. The Taoiseach told me that I had "some nerve" for asking him to stand up for CUH. It takes considerably more nerve to dismiss nine clinical directors while defending a Minister publicly attacking their hospital and ours.

Patient safety is at risk. Will the Taoiseach meet the CEO and clinical directors, commission an independent staffing assessment, and immediately approve the outstanding priority posts?

First of all, I want to acknowledge the tremendous work being done and that has been done by people working in Cork University Hospital over many years providing a strong and exceptional service to the people of the region. My objective and aim is to ensure that the hospital can work effectively and smoothly but we need to establish some fundamentals. The Deputy used the phrase "scapegoating the CEO" and I know the Deputy issued statements last week and yesterday in respect of a certain account of a meeting. I made a statement yesterday that this account was false and I would appreciate it if the Deputy accepted that statement. The HSE should clarify things and give the background to the entirety of that situation. My understanding is that the regional executive officer, REO, is very clear that at no stage did he make any reference to instructions from the Taoiseach's office or anybody from the Taoiseach's office. I want that to be clear because false assertions were made about my office. I want to absolutely clear about that.

Second, all is not well at CUH. That is very clear to me for different reasons but equally, as the Deputy said, he has been involved in the hospital, and I have been involved in supporting it for many years. Prior to the formation of the HSE, it was a Southern Health Board hospital. It has always been an integrated part of the public health acute hospital system in the Cork area. It still is now within the HSE. Whatever way these issues are going to get resolved, it has to be within that structure. It is a HSE hospital. It is not outside the HSE. It has got to work through the structures within the HSE. There cannot be alternative pathways and I will not be overriding the HSE. I will not be overriding the Minister in respect of this. I want to see a resolution of the issue, but trying to go directly over the head of the Minister either by meeting clinicians or whatever will not work. That is not the pathway to resolving these issues, nor is presenting inaccurate and untrue accounts of meetings people had locally. That is not a good way to do business either. I want to be very clear about that.

In terms of the safety issue, and I do believe that CUH, the Mercy, South Infirmary, Victoria, Mallow and Bantry all have to be looked at as an integrated public hospital service that complement each other and provide a service to the public and patients, there has been significant investment in CUH. I outlined it yesterday. It has gone from about €300 million to about €600 million between 2019 and 2025. The staffing has increased significantly.

Deputy Quaide to respond.

I do not think it is feasible that you would have an independent assessment-----

The Taoiseach will be back in.

-----of every single hospital. If you do it for one hospital, the next hospital will want it. That is not the way to do it either. I will come back to it.

The Taoiseach is not standing up for CUH. He is falling back on the same lines the Minister spins to deny the reality of what is happening there. The nine clinical directors who wrote to the Taoiseach have laid out that reality in stark terms: two CT scanners closed because of staffing shortages, patients waiting four weeks for essential access procedures for cancer treatment, 20 neuro-rehabilitation beds in Blarney unable to open because the Minister will not fund the staff, and now we are hearing of cancer operations cancelled and patients sent home at the last minute. This is a matter of life or death for some patients. We know that prolonged emergency department delays expose patients to serious harm and increased risk of death. The Taoiseach cannot keep defending the Minister while ignoring these warnings from senior clinicians. Will the Taoiseach intervene now, lift these recruitment restrictions and put patient safety ahead of defending the Minister?

Patient safety is paramount. What happened in respect of those cancer patients should not have happened, but the hospital needs to be managed as well.

It does not have the staff.

By that I mean, in terms of the scanners, for example-----

It does not have the staff.

Sorry, the staff has increased dramatically over the last number of years.

Did the Taoiseach read the letter that was sent to him?

Deputy, you were not to interrupt.

I did not interrupt the Deputy and I allowed him to ask the question. I respectfully ask him to allow me to answer. We went up 41% in staff between 2019 and 2025, from 3,456 to 4,870. That is what I am told and this year, we went from 4,870 to 5,194, and also-----

We need an independent assessment.

Deputy.

This is CUH. Also, CUH recruited more than any other hospital in 2026.

That is the background to it. HIQA is going into the hospital. The chief clinical officer, Colm Henry, has visited the hospital again recently in terms of patient safety.

That is not independent.

Patient safety is paramount in respect of any hospital and also in the context of CUH. It has to be.

I remind Deputies that each Member of the House, regardless of which side, has the opportunity and right to speak and be heard without interruption.

Before I begin, my thoughts are with the seven people impacted by the terrible arson attack off Clanbrassil Street yesterday. I commend the first responders who took brave action and I send my very best wishes to those still recovering in hospital.

Turning to better news, following the recent great election results in Brazil and Serbia, the Democrat surge in the US mid-terms last night has given us all reason to hope again. American voters have pushed back against Trump’s warmongering, his attacks on civil rights and his economic policies that back billionaires over working people. It is now up to the Democrats in congress and the senate to take on the mammoth task of tempering Trump’s worst tantrums before he and his acolytes do any more damage to the world. It is good to see those acolytes damaged by these elections. Indeed, to quote his occasional boss and long-time frenemy, Donald Trump, the perennial “bullshit artist” Elon Musk has wasted half a billion dollars in these elections. Despite this, he was not able to buy the race in Texas or elsewhere.

There is a lesson for the Taoiseach following the US results too. American voters have swung decidedly against tech oligarchs like Musk and against data centres. They are questioning the power of the AI technology furrowing deeper and deeper into everyday life. They are questioning how far from fulfilling its potential for good, AI is threatening democracies, economies and our planet. It is generating mass-scale sexual abuse imagery of the kind my colleague, Deputy Alan Kelly, hopes to tackle with our new Labour Party Bill amending Coco’s Law to be heard here tomorrow. Private sector bosses are citing alleged AI productivity gains in cutting jobs and freezing recruitment of our graduates and young people. Households plagued by the cost of living are watching data centres moving into their communities and further driving up bills. Those factors undoubtedly swung voters against Trump in the US but the same concerns exist here in Ireland.

Our country is home to nearly 150 data centres already although the numbers are difficult to establish due to lack of transparency. We know that nearly a quarter of our electricity goes to data centres, which is the highest per capita rate in the world. Energy costs are soaring. The ESB announced today it will hike the price of EV charging. One in seven households are already in arrears on their electricity bills; a shocking increase of more than 60% in just three years. The Taoiseach cites foreign wars as the reason for this but data centres are directly driving prices up. Friends of the Earth estimates that data centres added more than €715 million to household electricity bills nationally and people are feeling the pinch. On Saturday, we will have the first national protest against data centre expansion. That is one of many taking place across Europe on the same day. However, in June, the Government voted against our Labour Party motion to halt construction of new data centres and levy existing data centre operators. When will the Taoiseach wake up and smell the coffee? When will he act to curb the power of tech oligarchs and end unsustainable data centre growth?

I appreciate the Deputy's observations on the US mid-term elections. Many people will analyse and study the trends and factors underpinning that change. From my initial reading of accounts, I would have thought the war in Iran was a real factor in terms of the consideration of American voters and the high prices and inflation in the US for a number of reasons. Any anecdotal interviews all refer to the high prices. I am not so sure you can neatly characterise the election as just one area around technology and oligarchs.

We are not.

The foreign wars.

I sound a note of caution in terms of how one interprets the outcome of any given election. That is a matter for America and the people of America. The people have given their verdict in these mid-term elections. They have voted for the various candidates in the various races.

From our perspective, the situation between the United States and Europe is much different. We have an AI Act in Europe, for example, which regulates AI. In fact, US authorities and others would criticise Europe for what it terms over-regulation. I do not think we are over-regulated but we are regulated. We should acknowledge that and not give the impression we are not. On the digital side, we also did the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act. Both represent a very substantial edifice of the regulation of the digital world, which the Deputy should acknowledge, that is not present in the US. You cannot compare like with like in respect of European regulatory frameworks vis-à-vis the US, China or other areas of the world. In Ireland, we have established our own structures and powers to support safe, transparent and responsible AI.

The Deputy also referenced data centres. Again, we have a stronger regulatory framework governing the construction of data centres than elsewhere and particularly than the United States. How many data centres were connected to the grid in the last six or seven years?

That is rhetorical.

Yes, it is. I thank the Ceann Comhairle. We need a proper analysis of this with less heat and less emotion. There was literally a de facto moratorium on data centres from 2020 onwards. You have to go to before 2020 and I think there were only one or two connections to the grid. Prior to 2018 or 2017, there was a very substantial increase in data centres in the country. Relative to other countries, we do not have heavy industry or other large energy users. I would be interested to know if the Deputy thinks we should just abandon AI altogether. What is the ultimate objective she is putting forward in terms of how we should approach it?

I absolutely agree with the Taoiseach. There were multiple factors in the US elections and there is no doubt Trump's disastrous war in Iran played a huge part in the Democrat surge and people turning against him. I acknowledged that in my opening remarks. I know the Taoiseach watched these elections closely and that he will be aware the proliferation of data centres played a significant role, particularly in states like Michigan. People really stood out against Trump's policies on AI and against tech oligarchs. Of course, we can harness the power of AI for good. Of course, there is such a thing as ethical tech. It is really important that we speak up for that.

I agree with the Taoiseach about the different context here and strong EU frameworks and regulation. However, that makes it all the more extraordinary that the Government voted against our Labour Party proposals in June to provide better regulation of data centres. Our Deputy, Ciarán Ahern, put forward sensible proposals for regulation to ensure greater transparency. One of the issues the Taoiseach mentioned himself is a simple lack of knowledge about figures and how many data centres are operating. Just one in six are apparently submitting data to the EU energy efficiency directive, according to Friends of the Earth. There is a huge gap here in our knowledge and, therefore, a gap in regulation. Meanwhile, energy costs are soaring and being driven up causing real distress to households across the country.

I question the Friends of the Earth assessments. Some would as well. The organisation itself questions it as well in that the authors acknowledge it has limitations and is "extremely difficult to predict with any certainty". We will park that for a moment. The digital economy is important to Ireland. I presume the Deputy acknowledges that. It is important globally too. In fact, the position in Europe and elsewhere was that this era and the era to come is a digital and green era in terms of going to net zero and so on. The new large energy user action plan, LEAP, which was published only in January of this year, moves us to a more plan-led system in terms of data centres and greater certainty for people all round, reinforced by unprecedented grid investment. The criteria set out by the CRU are strong and stringent in respect of seeking new connections to the electricity system. That is the reality of it.

I welcome Independent Ireland Councillor Noel Thomas who in the Visitors Gallery today, along with Kyle Lohan. Kyle is 16 and he is on transition year work placement. I thank him for all the work he has done for Independent Ireland at 16 years of age. He has knocked on every door in Galway in the previous by-election and every other election to date. I thank him and acknowledge him for that.

He is welcome to Dáil Éireann.

Today, I have to talk to the Taoiseach about An Garda Síochána and our new Garda station in Newcastle West.

The fears I am hearing from An Garda Síochána regarding our new station in Newcastle West is that there are not enough gardaí to put into it.

The Government's proposal is to get to 15,000 gardaí. To be honest, I think we need 15,000 more. We have a population now hitting 6 million and criminal levels are at an all-time high. In the parishes surrounding me, there were 16 robberies in two days and in the parishes adjoining them, 12 robberies were recorded in one place and 14 in another place, all of them done by criminal gangs. I was targeted last Friday when the keys of one vehicle, which were locked into a solid box, were taken, equipment worth €1,000 belonging to a carpenter was stolen and the lock was pulled off another van. We have the criminals, members of a well-known criminal gang, on CCTV, coming in and doing their work. They were gone within eight minutes.

Gardaí need cameras with registration recognition technology in places where there are criminal gangs. If cars belong to criminal gangs are in an area, the Garda would then be notified automatically. That can be done. We have had cameras turned off in Kilmallock and Croom for data protection reasons. People who are doing nothing wrong should not be worried about a camera that is there to protect good people against criminals. Repeat criminals are being brought to court multiple times and left off. There is no place to put them or hold them, so what does the Government do? It lets them back out and they do the same thing over and over again. Garda resources are being used to build a case against them and by the time the Garda builds a case, they are only given a slap on the wrist. It is a case of "Out you go to do it again" and within a week, they are in with gardaí again. It is a waste of resources.

I also welcome the young 16-year-old, Kyle Lohan, to the House. I commend his interest in politics, and I advise him to keep an open mind into the future-----

He is with the best party possible.

-----as I did when I was 16 years of age. He is welcome to the House.

Do not forget Councillor Noel Thomas.

The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.

Sure you might get him back.

This is a new device, where Deputies bring their aspiring candidates into the House to get them mentioned.

He is really one of yours.

He is indeed.

There has been very consistent recruitment of gardaí in the past two years. We had a significant setback during Covid, with the closure of Templemore and so on. However, we should reach about 15,000 in the near future. At the end of August, the figure was about 14,600 and we have had a further attestation of 207 recently. I think we will make the 15,000 figure by the end of the year. We then want to go higher than that because there are also retirements, which we acknowledge. There are about 3,616 additional Garda staff who work alongside the gardaí. That has enabled about 900 gardaí to be freed up for front-line duties. We have made changes to the Garda trainee recruitment process, through an increased recruitment age and training allowance, shortened recruitment timeframes and reform of the physical competency test, construction of the assessment centre, approaches to elements of recruitment and regular recruitment competitions. There is healthy interest in joining An Garda Síochána, which is positive.

As regards the Garda station, I presume the Deputy welcomes the investment into Newcastle West, which is significant. With this recruitment, we will be in a position to staff the station. The Commissioner has been progressively allocating additional gardaí, first to cities like Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and so on, and then to others. We have to get them out to rural Ireland, and the Minister for justice is very conscious of that. We will endeavour to get gardaí to west Limerick as well. We also note the passing of the late former Minister, Gerry Collins, who was a household name in Abbeyfeale and west Limerick more generally, and whose funeral is tomorrow. He was a former Minister for Justice. We are very conscious of the needs in the area.

On criminal gangs, I regret what has happened in the Deputy's own situation, which he has articulated to the House, as well as the other robberies he referenced. They will be convicted and will not be left out again if they are well-known criminal gangs. Gardaí use cameras and information provided by the public to prosecute these people. They need to be prosecuted and brought to justice.

I also extend my sympathies to the family of former Minister, Gerry Collins, who will be laid to rest tomorrow in Abbeyfeale. I acknowledge everyone in politics and the contributions they make.

We had a justice Minister in County Limerick, which covers east and west Limerick. All the criminal gangs know to target rural areas. All the Garda presence, as the Taoiseach just mentioned, is being put into Dublin city, Cork city and Limerick city. It is almost an hour and 40 minutes from one end of my constituency to the other. That is how far it is. We need Garda resources because criminals now know it is easy pickings. I welcome the Garda resources, the technology and the extra recruitment of gardaí, but the Government needs to stop putting all the gardaí into the cities. When you have a lot of people in one area, you can maintain them in it. However, in scattered places in rural Ireland, including rural Limerick, we deserve the same protection as people have in the cities. I would like to see that change.

There are gardaí being provided to rural Ireland, and there will be more allocated to rural Ireland as we continue to ramp up and get recruits into and out of Templemore in the time period.

We are also investing in prisons, with close to €500 million. We want to create about 1,500 more spaces and we need to do this by 2031. It is the largest ever building programme in the prison estate. Some people are objecting to it but we have to drive ahead. The Deputy is correct in respect of the need. If someone is convicted, they do their time. That has to be the objective.

In respect of technology, this Government has provided the technology required by An Garda Síochána. The previous Government had a different composition and others did not agree with giving gardaí the technology they needed to identify and convict criminals. As far as this Government is concerned, we will provide the technology and resources to procure that technology to An Garda Síochána because we have to stand behind it in facing up to this criminal element.

I raise the issue of how we protect and grow our successful open trading economy. The United States and the European Union remain our most important partners, but we need to consider more seriously how we diversify because too much rests on too few markets, sectors and companies. On markets, more than €4 in every €10 of our goods exports are earned in the United States. On sectors, more than half those goods are pharmaceuticals, and almost €6 in €10 of our service exports come from the IT sector. With companies, a handful of firms pay close to half our corporation tax. The companies behind those numbers have been very good for Ireland, and long may they stay, but it is a lot of eggs in very few baskets.

Recently, in my constituency, I addressed a Hong Kong business delegation in Sandyford and a Yorkshire Chamber delegation in Clonskeagh. Yorkshire alone has as many people as Ireland, so even in markets we think we know, there is room to grow and diversify away from the main cities and established trading routes. Both these groups found their own way to us. Imagine what we would find if we went looking ourselves proactively. The difficulty, as I see it, is how we incentivise our agencies. It is always going to be easier to find the next dollar, job or company out of Texas or California, and we should keep prospecting there, but diversification means looking beyond the next dollar. This will not happen unless we give the relevant agencies the mandate and resources to do it.

South Korea is the clearest example. As one of the world's 15 largest economies, it trains its biopharma workforce on the model of Ireland's National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training, NIBRT, which is based in Mount Merrion in my constituency.

The Taoiseach will recall he was instrumental in bringing NIBRT about when he was Minister for enterprise in 2025. The Korean version, K-NIBRT, trained over 3,500 people there last year, all on UCD- and Irish-branded material. Every one of those newly qualified professionals working in cutting-edge industry knows and trusts Irish expertise as a result. ICON, which is headquartered in Leopardstown, helped Korea grow one of the busiest clinical trial sectors in the world. Korea has one in seven of the world's medicines in development, and they will need a home in Europe. Yet in Seoul, I found just one IDA officer and one Enterprise Ireland officer. Korea imports almost half a million tonnes of beef a year. Last year, we sold it only 358 tonnes, and the Bord Bia post remains vacant. Korea is not unique. Similar opportunity gaps exist across south-east Asia, India, the Gulf, and Latin America.

Seán Lemass opened Ireland to the world. The opportunity today to double down on this is enormous. Building up our agencies' presence in these markets is a relatively small investment for outsize returns and a stronger, more resilient economy. Will the Government act, rather than waiting, to fill those gaps?

I thank the Deputy for raising in a very informed and insightful way the issues of Ireland's global footprint, the presence of our enterprise agencies in certain key markets and the need to expand that presence in markets, particularly in countries like South Korea. I agree with the basic import and substance of what the Deputy said. We have had Global Ireland 2025, which has been particularly impactful. We have expanded our diplomatic footprint significantly by opening 27 new missions since 2018. The final two missions, the consulates general in Malaga and Melbourne, opened this year. That enabled us to take a more strategic approach to global relations, to better weather the impacts of Brexit and then to deal with the Covid pandemic and Russia's illegal war on Ukraine and so on. We also developed a more proactive team Ireland approach, reflected in the Ireland House model. That will be key. I opened a flagship of that model in Tokyo, during my visit to Japan last year. I saw what a wonderful resource that is for the country and our enterprises. We now have 20 Ireland Houses overseas and we expect this to increase to 22 by the end of 2027 or early 2028. We want to expand the model with new Ireland Houses in London, Toronto, Madrid and so forth.

We also need to plan for the next strategy, to 2040. The Presidency of the EU takes up time but I want the next strategy, Global Ireland 2040, ready to be launched in the first half of next year. We need to do that and I will be working with the Department of foreign affairs and my own team to make sure it happens.

The Deputy made a fair point about market diversification. The key markets have been the UK, North America, including Canada, and areas of Asia. We have good relations with China. Twenty years ago, I was on a trade mission to South Korea. I take the Deputy's point that our presence is not good enough in South Korea. Ultimately, we need an Ireland House there. Enterprise Ireland in particular needs to be there. IDA Ireland needs to have a stronger team there. A review has been completed and resources will be increased and have increased in South Korea from the IDA perspective. The Enterprise Ireland review is expected to conclude in quarter 4 of 2026.

I take the Deputy's point on Bord Bia. The footprint review, aligned with the market prioritisation framework, is still under review with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Research Ireland does have dedicated overseas staff and they are not necessarily needed. South Korea is a market of growing strategic importance. The IDA has strengthened its presence in Seoul with a new chief executive in place since late last year, but we need more.

I thank the Taoiseach for the reply. I appreciate him confirming the delivery of the Global Ireland 2040 report. An international trade and investment strategy depends on having people on the ground to deliver it. At the moment, nobody outside those agencies can really see where those people are. Will the Government publish the staffing and targets of the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and Bord Bia on a market-by-market basis every year or indeed every quarter, so that we can see whether the effort is actually following the strategy? If we are serious about new markets, we need to invest and we need to see and measure that investment. Will the Taoiseach ask those three agencies to direct their focus, sooner rather than later, on Seoul and similar markets, so that, rather than reacting to each lead as it comes in, we have the resources there to make the most of every opportunity in markets like these?

I will. They should be transparent in that regard. For example, Bord Bia has about 50 people working in offices overseas. The numbers vary, with six in China, six in France, three in Germany and four in Singapore, but, to the Deputy's point, I do not think there are any in Seoul. I was very impressed with Bord Bia in China when I visited at the beginning of the year. Irish people were communicating about Irish food products in Mandarin to Chinese media, which was very impressive.

We have had a debate this morning on technology. To me, Seoul in South Korea is one of the big capitals for advanced technologies. The IDA has had some success with companies coming to Ireland to work on battery storage for supporting renewable energy. There are very important advanced technologies to be understood and to have their presence in terms of the tasks and challenges we face in technological advancement and investment in renewables.

I ask Members to stick to their allotted times and not to interrupt other speakers.

I put it to the Taoiseach to again hike up toll charges on our roads is unjustified and unjustifiable. If this goes ahead in January, it will represent the sixth such hike in prices in as many years. It will happen at a time when petrol and diesel prices are very high, but also at a time when the Government is also moving to increase public transport fares for buses and trains. The average person is caught every way. For a Government that talks a lot about easing cost-of-living pressures and looking after working families, it is a joke at this stage. I want the Taoiseach to intervene to put a stop to and freeze this or for the State to intervene and cover this. It certainly should not go ahead. It is most unfair at a time when we know that individuals, families and businesses are struggling.

It is not the Government that is doing this. There are very clear legal frameworks governing the operation of public-private partnerships, PPP, that built our motorways. That is the challenge here and it is related to the CPI inflation figure for the 12-month period to August 2026. Even Transport Infrastructure Ireland does not have the right to unilaterally change the basis on which PPP toll rates are revised.

They were frozen before.

There is a framework governing how the public-private partnerships-----

I know how it works.

If the Deputy knows how it works, then she knows that I cannot intervene unilaterally.

The M50 is not a PPP.

I know that for ten years the Government has intervened.

You know how this works - we do not interrupt.

Yesterday, families from all over Ireland stood outside the Dáil to campaign for a stronger Government response to drug-related intimidation. On the morning of that day, another family had their home petrol bombed on Clanbrassil Street, Dublin 8. In the past ten months, three children have been murdered through petrol bomb attacks on their home. Countless others have been targeted with violence and more are being coerced into engaging in criminality. This is endemic across Ireland. We need a national emergency response. The DRIVE programme referenced earlier by the Taoiseach was funded last year to the tune of €340,000. We need a response that meets the scale of what is becoming a crisis, where lives are being lost.

The Government has been relentless in taking on criminal gangs over many years. We have broken up many big criminal gangs here through very focused action by An Garda Síochána. What tends to happen is that new generations of criminals emerge and they manifest what they do differently. There is no question that this intimidation phenomenon by criminals is abhorrent and there can be no toleration of it. An Garda Síochána will focus very specifically on this and on those who are committing these murders and very violent attacks and we will bring them to justice.

This month marks 65 years since the international withdrawal of the drug thalidomide from the market, yet survivors with the Irish Thalidomide Association are forced to continue their campaign for justice. I am so disappointed to be raising this again with the Taoiseach, as I have done over many years. Finola Cassidy, the well-known campaigner on this issue, just turned 65 last week. She said her birthday wish was for the State apology to thalidomide survivors to be front-loaded. Whenever I raise this with the Taoiseach, he says that a resolution process is under way but why are survivors still contending with so many delays? Why are survivors still awaiting a promised date for a next meeting? It is simply unacceptable because, very sadly, we are learning every year of more affected people and their parents passing away, dying without ever seeing the justice they deserve. It is long past time that this 65-year-long saga came to an end. Can we see an apology for survivors and justice along the terms they have sought for so long?

What has been sought has changed as well in respect of some legal realities governing all of this and the role of the company involved. The delays are not on our side. We have met. We have had some good productive meetings and there continues to be engagement between the legal representatives and officials in my Department, and we are seeking to get a date soon for a further meeting. I want these issues resolved as quickly as we can. It has been frustrating from my perspective that certain aspects of this have not moved on as quickly as I thought they could have.

I am asking the Taoiseach to urgently intervene in the proposed plan for Ballyconnell Estate in Falcarragh. The proposed transfer from Údarás na Gaeltachta to Donegal County Council has been under discussion since 2018. Eight years later, despite continuous efforts, the local community is still waiting. It is about much more than transferring an estate. It is about unlocking the opportunities for Falcarragh and Cloughaneely and the wider Gaeltacht community in Donegal. Ballyconnell Estate could be a countrywide facility with public access to grounds, trails and heritage. It could support tourism, recreation, employment and the retention of young people and our language. The local GAA club is hosting an all-Ireland Gaeltacht competition in 2029, an event that only comes around every 20 years or so. They need facilities and for this estate to be opened with additional spaces put in place. This event could be in jeopardy. Could the Taoiseach intervene in this and get this over the line?

I did not quite get the full title of the estate but-----

Ballyconnell.

Tá dualgas ar an údarás áitiúil an cheist seo a réiteach le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta. Níor chóir go mbeadh aon mhoill air seo. Níl cúlra an scéil agam. I do not have the full background to the case. The local authority should resolve this. My understanding is that the Deputy is saying the estate should be transferred to the local authority so that it can be developed and opened up for community endeavour and recreational amenity and as an economic asset to the area. That has happened in many other places. I recall Spike Island. On one occasion, the county manager came to me and asked me whether I could get Spike Island transferred from the Department of Justice to the county council. He did not ask for any money by the way, and all current CEOs should take note of that. He just asked if I could get him the island. Look at Spike Island today. It is a major tourism resort. That is how things get done. I will follow it up.

The postal service is in tatters. I have heard that it is bad enough in the Taoiseach's constituency. I have heard a lot of stories recently in my constituency. One lady had no post for six weeks. Suddenly ten letters, some of which were from early September, were shoved in her mailbox. A public services card was delivered to the wrong address. This would be typed. Post did not arrive for three days and when the postperson was queried, the post was found to be in the van. I was handed a letter from a postman from another estate with a totally different name. We do have the new longer routes so a lot of staff are leaving. There is also the suggestion that parcels have been prioritised over letters. The service is not great. The Government can attach performance metrics and service retention clauses to An Post and also hold the board and CEO accountable. Will it try to do that given that An Post is autonomous but, at the same time, it should not be allowed to get away with a woeful service?

That is not our experience. I do not think that is uniform across the country, to be fair, and I would not like to use the phrase "in tatters". I will certainly ask the Minister if he can get an up-to-date performance report from the CEO of An Post.

I raise the important issue of ambulance response times in the east Cork area. Recently, we have received information that service provision in east Cork is under-serviced. This is causing enormous stress and is a health hazard to people who live in my constituency, particularly in the east and north Cork regions. Thankfully, the Minister for Health is already aware of the issue and has given some commitment that in the near future, we may see improvements. Will the Taoiseach reiterate to the Minister and the Department my concern to ensure that we do something to improve these services for the east Cork region? Of course, traffic congestion and other issues impact the response times but people on the ground are concerned about this. They need to see better provision and we also need to see the development of a new ambulance base, alongside the new ambulance training college in Youghal, to improve the service once and for all.

I thank the Deputy for advocating on behalf of the people of east Cork. I am conscious of the progress made in terms of the training base in terms of Youghal. I will speak to the Minister about this issue. It is an issue that gets raised periodically in terms of ambulance response times and the model that is used. I will certainly reinforce the Deputy's concerns to the Minister and talk to her about them.

This week last year, Claire Cullen from the small village of Riverchapel just outside of Courtown was preparing for her brother's wedding in the Dominican Republic. Claire, a mother of three, was a beautiful young woman, a well-known hairdresser and a gifted artist and musician. On 7 November last year, Claire was tragically killed in a hit-and-run incident in the Dominican Republic. The driver fled the scene but later handed himself into the authorities. This horrific incident had a devastating effect on the community of Riverchapel. One year on, Claire's family is still awaiting justice. I understand we cannot interfere with the judicial process in the Dominican Republic, but I ask that the Government continue to monitor and provide full assistance to both the Cullen and O'Brien families. Her husband Ronan, her three children and her extended family deserve justice for Claire.

I thank the Deputy for raising this very sad situation. I express my sincere condolences to the husband, children, extended family and friends of Ms Claire Cullen on the tragic loss of Claire in the Dominican Republic almost one year ago. The death of a loved one is a very traumatic loss for the family and the community and when it happens far away from home, it adds another layer to the enormity of the grief of the family. I assure the Deputy that officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been providing extensive consular assistance and support to Ms Cullen's family. The Embassy of Ireland in Bogotá, Colombia, is accredited to the Dominican Republic and provided extensive consular assistance in the immediate aftermath of her passing. Embassy officials and officials in the Department's consular directorate in Dublin have liaised closely with local authorities in the Dominican Republic to support the family in Claire's repatriation to Ireland. Since that period, the consular directorate has remained in regular contact. A dedicated consular officer in the Department was assigned to the case and remains available to support the Cullen family at any time.

The Taoiseach and Deputy Brennan might need to engage further.

I will talk to the Deputy to see if there is any more we can do.

The Government needs to end the recruitment freeze in the health services in Donegal. For years, we have struggled with a lack of staff in our hospital at Letterkenny, our mental health services, our disability services and our community hospitals. We have lagged behind the rest of the country. We won a campaign last year on the surgical hub. It was based on the fact that we had been neglected for years. Just as we are starting to turn that around, this recruitment freeze has kicked in. It has to be removed. We cannot continue to allow our people to suffer in the emergency department in Letterkenny, our staff to work in horrendous conditions and our people with disabilities and those using mental health services to be failed. Will the Government remove the recruitment freeze immediately?

Staffing levels have increased very significantly across the entirety of the health service in the past number of years. Budgets have gone up very significantly. There needs to be a degree of realism about this and how we plan sustainably for the provision of our health services. There has been expansion across the board. The surgical hub was a good decision that the Minister took. The Minister listened to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Independent TDs. There was no campaign. The Minister was readily persuadable in respect of Letterkenny, and indeed other hospitals, because a surgical hub is a good model to try to ring-fence elective beds so that people can get their surgery done more quickly.

I will ask the Minister to engage with Letterkenny with a view to seeing what can be done. The staffing has increased all round this year again very substantially.

Over 20 years ago, the Government allocated €350,000 of sports capital grant to the KDUL, the Kildare District Underage League, for grassroots football. In 2023, that was finally drawn down to develop a state-of-the-art all-weather football pitch. In that time, no KDUL league or cup match has happened on this pitch, which is fully open, because a different entity, the KDUL CLG, has full ownership of it. I do not believe this was the intended use of that sports capital fund. I raised this on the floor of the Dáil last year with the Minister, who said that there was nothing to see here, that the fund had been drawn down, but we are still at a complete impasse. Will the Taoiseach ask the Minister to convene a meeting with all stakeholders? We have the KDUL, the KDUL CLG-----

Who is that?

It is a private entity. It is essentially an academy football team and it has full ownership of it.

What team?

Klub Kildare.

The Taoiseach may respond, and he might need further engagement.

It is a completely different entity. This means 6,000 kids have no football.

This is not something that should be resolved in Dáil Éireann. This is crazy. I do not understand the full background to this. Obviously, someone applied who should not have applied. Is that it, or was there previously an harmonious relationship? I presume there was an harmonious relationship between the two entities when the grant was originally applied for. I will have to find out the background and will talk to the Minister. It is terrible. The kids should be playing on the pitch. We put the money in. It is taxpayers' money. It belongs to the community. That is how it should happen. We will have to watch how that model works because that cannot happen again.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín.

You cannot have private groups doing that. Sorry.

Here is something that can be resolved by Dáil Éireann, the Taoiseach will be glad to know. At the start of the year, I raised with the Minister for justice an organisation that provides services to migrants in Meath. I asked for the results of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities. At the time, the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, said that there was an investigation and that the Department was concerned about it, so much so that it had paused funding of the organisation. I have asked a subsequent question of the Minister, who again said he had concerns about it, but he said that funding had started. I have also asked for the publication of the investigation.

Either there were financial irregularities or there were not. A report was done into it. That report should be published. The name of the organisation is Cultúr. Surely taxpayers have the right to know whether State funds were misused in this case. Surely there should be accountability. Will the Taoiseach confirm today that the report will be published so that people will know whether there was wrongdoing in that location?

First, I do not have the background to that case. The Deputy mentioned an organisation called Cultúr. I will talk to the Minister about it, but in situations like this, one cannot just publish a report that could be subject to legal challenge or could be perceived to be defamatory such that people could take action and so on. I do not know the background to it. Obviously, the Minister, if he has expressed concern about it, did pause the funding initially. I cannot give the Deputy the reasons as to why funding might have recommenced. It may have something to do with the content of the report. I do not know. I cannot just unilaterally, without any background to this, condemn people, question them or put a cloud over their character or whatever.

I understand. The Taoiseach can ask the Minister.

I want to raise the serious issue of access to endometriosis care for women in the west of Ireland. I recently met Endo Ireland, which highlighted the difficulties facing women living with this debilitating condition. I welcome the Government’s national endometriosis framework, which designated Galway as a regional specialist hub, but over a year later Galway still has no lead clinician and no specialist excision surgery expertise. Women are being referred to Galway, where specialist treatment is unavailable, while Dublin hospitals are reportedly refusing referrals because they fall outside their catchment areas. These women are being left in limbo, suffering chronic pain without access to treatment. Will the Taoiseach commit to an immediate referral pathway for these women, a firm timeline for the appointment of a clinical lead and the full delivery of the Galway specialist service?

I thank the Deputy for raising this very important issue. The Government and I recognise how debilitating endometriosis can be and the impact it can have on those who suffer from it. To be fair, the Minister and the Government have put a particular focus on women’s healthcare over the last number of years, but particularly and more specifically in respect of endometriosis. A national funded plan to improve the care is being delivered. There is a national framework for management and so on.

On the specifics in Galway, I will revert to the Minister. Regional specialist centres for moderate cases have been established in the Rotunda, the Coombe and University Hospital Limerick, and I have a note that says there are clinics under further development in University Hospital Galway and the National Maternity Hospital. We also have two supra-regional specialist centres in Tallaght and Cork University Maternity Hospital. My understanding is the funding has been allocated. I am not clear as to why the appointments have not gone ahead in Galway. I will ask the Minister if she could follow up with the HSE on that.

The Government and the Oireachtas have done a lot of good and very important work on limiting the appeal, availability and use of vapes. The single-use vapes Act, which has come into law, bans the sale and distribution of disposable single-use vapes and aims to reduce environmental waste and limit access to low-cost vaping. The Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling) (Amendment) Act has banned fruit- and menthol-flavoured vape products and introduced restrictions on flavour descriptions, prohibition of display of vaping products and restrictions on their sale to under-18s. While there is a lead-in period for these Acts to come fully into force and we hope this reduces the number of vape shops, there is still a proliferation. Is the Government planning any additional changes to reduce the numbers of vapes shops on our high streets? There are some small towns with three or four vape shops, often near schools and busy roads and streets, and their visibility to young people is still there.

I accept the point the Deputy is making. I think vapes are shocking. They damage people’s health and more and more research is indicating the very negative impact of vapes on young people’s health and that of adults as well. We need even stronger regulation. The Deputy is correct. The Minister of State with responsibility for public health, Deputy Murnane O’Connor, along with the senior Minister, has introduced these two significant measures in terms of under-18s, narrowing point-of-sale displays, tastes and flavours and so on.

On the planning side, however, planning law does not distinguish between types of retail goods, so the regulation of vape sales, advertising and display rests primarily with the Minister for Health. There are retail planning guidelines. They do not allow regulation of shops by the products they sell; however, local authorities can address concentrations or impacts of particular retail uses to protect town centre vitality and visibility and ensure diverse retail offering, including litter, shopfront design and diversity of uses. There is room within those guidelines. I think we need to do more. I am talking to the Minister for housing about this. He has a lot on his plate in terms of the various planning statements his Department has to produce, but there is an issue here and many people are concerned about the proliferation of these shops.

Today is Groundhog Day because I am raising again the Government’s failure to properly engage on the future funding of the CCTV network in Limerick. This is about the fourth time I have raised this. The shortfall is €660,000. The mayoral forum met this morning again. I know that the Taoiseach was not there, that he sent his apologies and that a number of senior Ministers attended, but the Minister for justice did not send his apologies to the mayor. A submission was made by the mayor and the council to his Department. I am trying to be constructive. Will the Taoiseach at least ensure that the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, meets us as local Oireachtas Members, the príomh chomhairleoir and the mayor? We need to find a solution to this other than the mayoral fund. We need the Minister to sit down with us instead of continually ignoring our concerns. If we do not find a solution to this, we risk a return to a feud in Limerick.

I thank the Deputy for raising this. In fairness to the Minister for justice, he was here in the House from 10 a.m. to 12 noon to deal with the Private Members’ business, which I think people would expect in terms of accountability. The Minister for housing is more responsible for this. It comes under the aegis of the local authority in terms of CCTV, or maybe not. In early presentations, there was a reference to the local authority fund in terms of the CCTV provision in Limerick. As I said, I will talk to the Ministers involved.

These issues should be resolvable, given the increased public expenditure in all Departments and, indeed, towards local authorities.

I raise the matter of electricity supply in rural County Carlow, particularly in my home village of Kildavin. Some residents are getting increasingly frustrated by the constant interruptions to their supply. One resident recently told me that on one day in September, they lost their electricity 11 times. This is an issue affecting families, farmers, rural businesses and, in particular, people who are trying to work from home. I absolutely accept that the Government has made significant investment in improving critical infrastructure, grid infrastructure and the work of ESB Networks. When will families and households in rural areas of Ireland feel the benefit of that investment? Is there something the Government can do in the meantime, particularly given the increasing cost of electricity?

I met EirGrid recently with Government Ministers and our sense from the meeting was that resilience had improved overall this year and will continue to do so next year. I do not know whether there are issues specific to rural Carlow in terms of electricity outages, but I will communicate with ESB Networks and EirGrid about this to see what is going on in that location.

I raise the issue of Coláiste an Phiarsaigh in Glanmire as well as other school projects, not only in Cork North-Central but across the country. The Taoiseach is familiar with the project. He attended a number of years ago the launch of the proposal for a brand new school. Unfortunately, since then, the school has been stuck in the perennial 2A, 2B log-jam.

I recognise that capital spending on education has increased by about 70% since 2022 or 2023. I am not saying that significant investment has not gone in, but many projects like that of Coláiste an Phiarsaigh in Glanmire, where I live, are looking for confirmation of whether they will be part of any tranche of construction that will be launched next year. As we know, time is money. In the case of many of these capital projects, the longer we leave them on the long finger, the more likely it is that the cost will increase. It would be appreciated if the Taoiseach could bring some clarity to the situation.

I thank the Deputy for raising this. He has been raising it for quite some time and there is a degree of frustration on his part and that of the school patrons and community about progressing the school to the next stage. While he is correct in saying that additional funding has been allocated to education, inflation has eaten up a significant amount of this. The cost of school projects generally has increased, per project, by significant degrees. That said, I will keep a focus on this and will engage with the Minister for education on progressing the project as quickly as possible.

Last night, Donald Trump took a hammering and the reason is that he failed to deal with the cost-of-living crisis. Ultimately, people punished the US Government when they could not pay their bills. I believe the same will happen here if the Government does not deal with the immense pressure people are under. Diesel, for example, is still over €2.10 per litre and almost 50% of that is taxation. The Government will still take in more this year than in any previous year in carbon tax and VAT. Electricity prices in this country are the highest in Europe, 40% above the EU average, yet the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, has implemented further network charges in the last number of weeks. Will the Taoiseach address the major pressure so many families are under with housing, rent and energy? It is crippling so many families.

The cost of living is a major issue facing many families and that is why we took a lot of measures in the budget, including cutting taxes, bringing in a new cost-of-disability payment, reducing childcare costs at the commencement of the new childcare year next year and strong social protection increases. All of that, and specific measures for food production, haulage and farmers, were to try to ease and alleviate the undoubted costs of energy, which are caused outside the country by the wars in Ukraine and Iran. They have raised prices dramatically. We have had two crises in the last five years with the wars in Ukraine and Iran and the closure of, and restriction of traffic through, the Strait of Hormuz. Very few governments have been in the position we have been in, to try to alleviate the pressures on the public., but they are significant. The Government cannot deal with every cost increase across the economy. What we can do is try to protect as many people as we people as we possibly can.

Last Thursday evening, I received a phone call from a family of five, including two children aged 16 and 12, who had presented as homeless to Cork County Council in Annabella, Mallow. They were told no emergency accommodation was available. The Simon Community in Cork was also full when they made the call. That night, the family of five slept in a church in Ballincollig. On Friday, they returned to Cork County Council only to be referred back to IPAS. I have seen correspondence in which IPAS directed them back to the local authority, while Cork County Council said it needed clarification from the Department of justice. They were eventually given accommodation last night, so they spent five nights sleeping in the church in Ballincollig.

It is difficult to stand over a system in which a family is passed between State agencies while two children remain homeless. Will the Government review the legislation and ensure there is a clear, enforceable responsibility to provide emergency accommodation when families present as homeless?

I do not have the specific background. It is not acceptable that a family of five with two children would have to spend time in a church. I presume that if they had been moved on from an IPAS centre, it was because their residency had been confirmed or they have permission to remain in the State.

Yes.

There have been movements from IPAS centres, but they should be organised and structured better than what happened here. I take the Deputy's point. I will not say it is in any way satisfactory. It is not.

Will the Taoiseach allow people to decide on the Government's proposal to scrap the triple lock by calling an ordinary referendum on the Defence (Amendment) Bill? Why? Because it is a matter of national importance - the Taoiseach himself has said the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality - because people have voted on this in terms of the Nice and Lisbon treaties, and because Fianna Fáil in government promised people that if it were to ever change the triple lock, there would be a referendum. Brian Cowen, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, in 2002 stated:

The National Declaration [the civil declaration] confirms...that we will continue to take our sovereign decision...based on the triple lock guarantee of UN endorsement, Government decision and Dáil approval....there will be no change to that situation unless the people first give their assent in a referendum.

Will the Government hold to that commitment Fianna Fáil made and allow the people to decide?

Through the referendum on the Nice treaty, we inserted in the Constitution a prohibition on Ireland joining a mutual defence pact in the European Union, so we already have a provision in the Constitution prohibiting Ireland joining any mutual defence pact, which the Deputy never references. No one on that side of the House ever references it.

That is different from the triple lock

It is crucial because the Deputy says we want our young people to join a European army. They cannot. We could not do it. No government could because there is a constitutional prohibition on it.

The Deputy mentioned an ordinary referendum. We have never had an ordinary referendum. We only have referendums to amend the Constitution, that is, to delete something from the Constitution or to add something to it. The Deputy is endeavouring to create a new form of check or limit on the democratically elected representatives in the Parliament.

Fianna Fáil promised people

That concludes questions. I thank the Taoiseach.

We have a parliamentary democracy.

Fianna Fáil promised people.

Deputy, please, show courtesy.

Through the referendum on the Nice treaty, we inserted the strongest possible protection-----

Taoiseach, your time is up. We have finished.

-----against Ireland joining any mutual defence pact.

There will be no change "unless the people first give their assent in a referendum".

That is the end of Questions on Policy or Legislation. Taoiseach, please. Do not antagonise him.

No change. Fianna Fáil promised people.

Deputy Murphy, respect the direction of the Chair. Out of courtesy, I allowed the Deputy in even though we were over time. I might have to review that in the future.

I welcome the students of Nagle Community College to the Gallery. They are led by the school's principal, Nicholas O'Keeffe, and the son of the Chief Whip, Mary Butler, Jack Butler, who teaches there. All of the students are very welcome to Dáil Éireann.

The meeting of the European Council on 15 and 16 October was the first to take place during Ireland's Presidency term. It was a long meeting with a very full agenda, with leaders having discussions on a number of key Presidency policy priorities. The priorities included competitiveness, the next multi-annual financial framework, Ukraine and enlargement. Other items on the agenda included migration, European security and defence and, of course, the Middle East. I will set out the main results of the European Council meeting on competitiveness, the multi-annual financial framework, Ukraine and the Middle East. The Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne, will speak later to the other issues.

Leaders reviewed ongoing work to strengthen the competitiveness of the European economy against the backdrop of increased geopolitical uncertainty. I briefed colleagues on the considerable progress being made by the Irish Presidency on the implementation of the One Europe, One Market roadmap, which is the blueprint for European competitiveness, building on the Draghi and Letta reports. The targets set out in the roadmap were jointly agreed by the European Union’s three institutions, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission. As the current holder of the Presidency of the Council, Ireland is doing all we can to meet the goals agreed in the roadmap.

In this context, the European Council had a useful exchange with President Metsola of the European Parliament on the importance of continued constructive engagement by the European Parliament to advance negotiations with the Council on key files in line with the ambitious timelines in the roadmap. I also took the opportunity to highlight specific priority files where an extra political push is required. This includes finding the right balance on the Industrial Accelerator Act, where compromise will be required to reach political agreement this year.

On European Union Inc., our political exchanges at this European Council set the path for the Council negotiating mandate secured by the Irish Presidency on 23 October, with significant progress there. This is a measure that will make a real and practical difference to Europe’s start-up and scale-up potential. It represents a significant milestone for the Irish Presidency, and I thank our hard-working teams in Brussels and Dublin for their efforts in securing this result. As holders of the Presidency, we look forward to early progress in the European Parliament so that we can advance negotiations to conclude the file.

On foot of the leaders’ exchanges, we also secured agreement on an important package of measures to simplify European Union digital regulation. We now have agreement on three of the four omnibus simplification packages we are aiming to conclude this year.

The discussions among leaders also helped advance the European Union’s savings and investment union. The Irish Presidency has reached an important agreement with the European Parliament on measures to revive and simplify the European Union’s securitisation market.

At the ECOFIN Council in October, the member states reached a political agreement on the market integration and supervision package. I pay tribute to the Tánaiste and his team for their hard work in delivering this important agreement. These key elements of the savings and investments union, or the securing a capital markets union, will help to create a truly single market for capital, including stronger financing for fast-growing young firms at the technological frontier.

Our October meeting also included important political exchanges on the review of the emissions trade system, ETS, which will inform the ongoing work towards achieving political agreement on this difficult package at the Environment Council in December.

Energy was a key focus of discussion in the broader competitiveness context and leaders underlined the critical importance of tackling high energy prices. We discussed the impact of the current geopolitical context on global supply chains, energy security and prices, including the effects on citizens, in particular the most vulnerable, industry and the wider economy. We underlined the urgent need for a co-ordinated European response, with targeted and temporary measures that reflect the specific circumstances of member states and safeguard the Single Market. The Commission’s proposal to postpone the methane regulation was welcomed in that regard. Alongside immediate measures to protect households and industry, we reaffirmed that accelerating the transition to clean, homegrown energy is the most effective way to strengthen Europe’s energy security and structurally lower energy prices.

Our discussion on global macroeconomic imbalances at the European Council underlined that China’s economic model is presenting significant challenges for Europe, including de-industrialisation. Leaders welcomed the progress made by Commissioner Šefčovič during the recent European Union-China trade and investment consultations in Beijing, including agreement by China on an approach to significantly moderate exports of hybrid vehicles and on ways to improve market access for European exports. It is important to acknowledge that these agreements reached with China represent the first step towards achieving rebalanced trade between China and the European Union.

In parallel with the ongoing dialogue with China, there was broad support for recent Franco-German proposals that advocated swifter use of existing trade defence tools and the development of new ones to rectify structural imbalances in trade. The importance of unity on this issue cannot be overstated, and we should proceed in a manner that ensures that the European Union remains a strong, innovative economy that is competitive and open to investment, and an advocate for free and fair trade.

At the October European Council, I presented the Irish Presidency’s revised negotiating box on the 2028-2034 multi-annual financial framework, in other words the budget for Europe for the next seven years. This meeting marked a significant milestone and achievement by our Presidency, the delivery of a robust compromise proposal on the future European Union budget. In sharing our rationale and approach, I made clear to European Union leaders that the objective of our revision was to present a modernised and flexible budget that invests in new and emerging priorities on the one hand, while at the same time protecting treaty-based policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP.

The proposal also reflects the fiscal realities that all member states face. The Irish Presidency proposal reflects an ambitious budget of €1.62 trillion, a 30% increase on the current multi-annual financial framework. Our proposal remains future-oriented, with a strong focus on competitiveness, research and innovation while reflecting a greater focus on security and defence in the context of a more uncertain world. It proposes a package of European competitiveness funds totalling more than €400 billion and the competitiveness heading overall has more than doubled compared with the current multi-annual financial framework.

We have also responded to the calls of a very large number of member states that want to see national envelopes under heading 1, Cohesion and the Common Agricultural Policy, protected as part of that positive, future-focused agenda. These are valued, impactful and proven policies that can continue to support and develop our regions, our rural communities and our farmers into the future. We have also sought to ensure flexibility within national envelopes in how member states allocate this European Union funding.

We have protected support for recovery and reconstruction funds for Ukraine and also humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable. We approached our task with an open mind and not with any fixed agenda. We also listened to those member states that contribute most to the budget that the previous proposal was simply too large for our current fiscal circumstances. That is not something that can be lightly set aside if we are to reach agreement. That is why we reduced the overall volume by about 8%, or €141 billion, compared with the Commission’s proposal. That should not distract us from the very real increases that are being made when compared with the current MFF.

This Irish proposal is for a budget that is 30% above our current MFF and almost every programme receives an increase in our negotiating box when compared with the current situation. The revision seeks to bridge the differences between member states on volume, long-term spending priorities and how the European Union will generate its revenue.

As is the nature of difficult budget negotiations, our negotiating box was never going to please everyone. However, it has been broadly welcomed by leaders as an important step in the right direction. I am confident that it has advanced discussions further on the path to agreement before the end of the year. I am particularly keen that we get agreement. It now falls to President Costa to take these negotiations forward. The Irish Presidency remains at his service to assist with this complex and challenging task.

Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine is deadlier for civilians today than at any point since the start of the full-scale invasion. By August 2026, more civilians were killed and injured in Ukraine than during the whole of 2025. At the European Council, leaders reaffirmed our steadfast support for Ukraine. President Zelenskyy gave an overview of the situation on the ground in Ukraine. We maintained our call for a ceasefire and for Russia to cease its aggression and engage in meaningful negotiations. We strongly condemned Russia for deliberately targeting Ukraine’s civilian, energy and transport infrastructure, healthcare and education facilities. Despite all peace efforts, Russia has repeatedly shown it is intent on escalating rather than de-escalating the conflict. The Black Sea corridor remains blocked as Russian strikes target commercial shipping and weaponises food and global food security.

Russia is a direct threat to the global security order beyond Ukraine, repeatedly violating member states’ airspace and territorial waters. Ireland is committed to ensuring Ukraine receives the support it needs to resist Russian aggression, to strengthening pressure on Russia through European Union sanctions and to advancing Ukraine’s pathway to European Union membership. The European Union’s robust targeted sanctions in response to Russia’s war of aggression are impacting on the Russian economy, making it harder to access battlefield foods and to pay for war. Leaders also reaffirmed the European Union’s determination to take forward further measures to raise the costs to Russia, including by targeting the shadow fleet and its enablers. Ireland is working to ensure that Ukraine has access to the finance it needs to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.

As a Presidency, we have facilitated the disbursement of the instalments of the European Union’s €90 billion support loan for Ukraine. However, Ukraine still has significant financing needs for 2027, potentially in the region of €70 billion. This is a direct result of Russia’s continuing and escalating aggression. The European Union and its member states will need to rise to this challenge. Leaders will return to this issue at a special meeting of the European Council in late November. As part of the enlargement process, Ireland launched negotiations on clusters 2, 3, and 6 for Ukraine, in addition to the launch of cluster 1 earlier in the year. We are working to achieve the opening of the remaining two clusters and hope that this can achieved before the end of our Presidency.

Moldova is also feeling the impact of Russia’s war of aggression and its threat to the security of the entire region. The people of Moldova are suffering daily from Russia’s hybrid activity. It is therefore important that the European Union also works to advance Moldova’s path towards European Union membership. The European Council leaders welcomed progress made on its accession negotiations, with the opening of four of six negotiating clusters to date. The opening of all clusters is a priority of our Presidency.

The European Council expressed its grave concern about the deterioration in the security situation across the Middle East and the continuing military escalation in the region. We agreed on the importance of all actors avoiding further escalation. Dialogue and diplomacy remain the only viable path forward. Maritime security was a particular focus. Freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea is vital for global trade and energy security. We also reiterated that Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. The Council clearly condemned human rights violations in Iran and the European Union must continue to take measures targeting those responsible for these violations. On Yemen, Ireland joined the Council in strongly condemning continued Houthi military escalation, including attacks against Saudi Arabia, including civilian infrastructure, and repeated attacks on civilian shipping.

Leaders discussed the deteriorating situation in Gaza and the West Bank, and again called on Israel to allow immediate, unimpeded access and sustained distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale into and throughout Gaza. We reiterated the European Union’s commitment to the two-state solution. Indeed, a key focus of Ireland’s Presidency of the Council is to reaffirm the European Union’s commitment to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East based on a two-state solution that guarantees the right of both Israeli and Palestinians to self-determination and to live in peace and safety within secure borders.

We are now at the fifth month into Ireland’s Presidency term. The October European Council meeting marked both a significant milestone with the presentation of the Irish negotiating box and a significant opportunity for progressing our other Presidency priorities. I look forward to welcoming my fellow European Union leaders to Dublin next week for an informal meeting of the European Council. This will be preceded by the European Political Community summit the day before, which will be the largest meeting of international leaders ever hosted in Ireland. I look forward to updating the House on these events and future meetings of the European Council, and on the results of the Irish Presidency as we head into the most intense and pivotal phase of our term in office.

In the first instance and before I go into the substance of it, it is important to acknowledge that during the course of the Presidency many members of staff in the Department of foreign affairs spent a considerable amount of time organising it. We must pay tribute to the enormous initiative of those people and acknowledge that.

I will begin with Palestine. I just left a meeting with Francesca Albanese, who met the foreign affairs committee yesterday, informally. She will appear before the European Union affairs committee today. The statement the Taoiseach made acknowledges it, but a great deal more is needed. The situation in Palestine remains profoundly serious both in a humanitarian and political sense. Depressingly, the recent Israeli election shows that while there are differences in policies, ultimately, both the Israeli Government and opposition are dedicated to expanding settlements and undermining the pathway to a sovereign and independent Palestinian state. That needs to remain our position. Clearly it is, but it is the way that the politics of Israel remain focused on undermining that.

There is a great deal more that this State can do. There is more Europe can do. The continued existence of the EU-Israel Association Agreement is a stain on the reputation of the EU. The idea that the human rights clause could not have been invoked, dozens and perhaps hundreds of times in recent years, is absurd. The Irish Government is also at fault. It is appalling that so many licences were given for dual-use items that went on to go directly to the IDF during the height of the genocide. Products produced here in Ireland were effectively going on to assist the genocidal policies of the Israeli Government. It is shameful and wrong. Questions remain as to how that sign-off would have been given.

In relation to the Middle East, I echo what the Taoiseach has said about human rights abuses with Iran. I have never felt that there is any contradiction between condemning an illegal war in Iran and the chaos that is caused in that region. It is very clear that there are human rights violations. There were executions of protestors in recent days. It must go on the record again that it is a repressive and ruthless government. Nonetheless, the war that was encouraged by the Israeli Government and supported by President Trump has caused chaos in the region. There is no disputing that. At the time, I and many others said that ultimately American workers and families would pay the price for the attacks on Iran through the impact on the cost of living. That is clearly seen in the elections yesterday. It has caused chaos throughout the world. It is important to state that we will watch in the coming days the response from the US Administration. I hope that it will not see a further escalation.

I will touch on the issues in Sudan. It is too often neglected, both in these Houses and internationally. It has been a bit longer than a year since the massacre at El Fasher, with some of the worst scenes of violence that we have seen in this century. The numbers who were killed in that slaughter are not yet fully known, even at this stage, but it was certainly over 20,000 and hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. It is the most appalling humanitarian situation in the world. In this area, we have leverage and things we can do. A candidate from the United Arab Emirates is putting themselves forward for Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The Irish Government must rule out support for Lana Nusseibeh. There has to be a price paid for the United Arab Emirates' complicity in the appalling slaughter we have seen. She has been part of the Emirati cover for the ongoing supply of drones, weaponry and other support for the RSF, which is responsible for these slaughters. The Government has the option of stating it will not support that candidacy and it must do so.

I again condemn recent attacks on civilians in Ukraine by Vladimir Putin. It is clear the statements he is making are paying lip service to negotiations and he is not interested at this point in meaningful negotiations. Sanctions need to continue to be part of it. I have raised time and again with the Taoiseach and the Minister the need for Ireland to raise its voice. The Taoiseach referenced the energy situation. Russia continues to have significant influence because of its grasp on energy. Ireland could put forward sanctions in relation to Rosatom, the Russian atomic agency. That is a clear demand of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ireland should be more vocal in supporting that.

Another European Council meeting has taken place that signally fails to grasp the geopolitical realities facing the world. While Iran is rightly criticised for its attacks in the region, the conclusions of the European Council read as though it simply launched spontaneous attacks on its neighbours. Nowhere in the conclusions is the United States or Israel criticised for starting a war that has worsened an already critical cost-of-living crisis in Ireland and across the EU. Why are we so afraid to call out the United States for its warmongering? Why does it have carte blanche to destabilise entire regions, sit back and point the finger at those it attacked? If we are too cowardly to assign blame where it belongs, how can we be surprised when the US and Israel do the same thing over and over? It is cowardly. The Iranian regime is not to be defended but if we are to have a serious conversation about peace in the Middle East, it was US and Israeli warplanes that dropped bombs on 28 February this year. That is why the Strait of Hormuz closed and why a tank of diesel suddenly costs €30 or €40 more. Now that the US Republican Party has been embarrassed in the mid-term elections, the world is holding its breath for Donald Trump's reaction. It is an irrational actor we are dealing with and we are too afraid to call it for what it is.

The conclusions on Gaza similarly fail to grasp the severity of the situation. We are still urging Israel to allow humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinian people unimpeded. It is clear Israel is waiting for winter to kill those Palestinians it could not bomb. Starvation, dirty water and collapsing buildings can kill as readily as a bullet or a bomb. Diseases are rampant, especially those affecting young children, but the European Council is more concerned with Hamas's political future than children who are dying right now. I question the priorities and motives of the Council. I question its humanitarianism. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is criticised for not scheduling elections as settler violence spills out of control. Again, we urge Israel not to continue to steal land in the West Bank and ethnically cleanse its rightful inhabitants. Israel must be held to account; it must be sanctioned. Israel cannot be treated with kid gloves while the crimes against humanity play out before our very eyes.

I was very disheartened to hear the Taoiseach. He hardly mentioned the proposed cuts to CAP. What does this say for the farmers and what they face? Today is a major milestone for the Irish Presidency, said the Minister for agriculture following last week's meeting of the European agricultural council. It is a major milestone all right in that under the Irish Presidency the agricultural council has proposed dismantling CAP as we know it. The IFA is going around lobbying TDs to say this. The proposal involves scrapping the two-pillar structure and folding agricultural funding into wider national and regional partnership plans. Pillar 2 would no longer be protected by a dedicated funding structure, leaving vital rural development and environmental programmes competing for money.

Farmers must be properly rewarded for being good stewards of the land. Environmental protection must go hand in hand with farm profitability and not come at the expense of it or of regional development. What has the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, done to secure this for Irish farmers? What will he do in the fight for them? We want to hear about it. Is the Commission proposal of a 20% to 25% CAP budget cut still on the table? The Government, Minister of State and Taoiseach should not stand for this. If a cut to our farmers of one quarter, or even one fifth, is coming, this will not work for our farmers. The Government cannot sign off on any European budget which contains a single euro less for our farmers. According to analysis by farming organisations in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, these cuts would reduce family farm incomes by €2,100 to €2,300. Our rural communities and family farms cannot be left paying the price for a weakened CAP. We need the Minister of State to stand up. They cannot afford a weak Government advocating for them. Now is the time to fight and I ask the Minister of State to do that.

I appreciate the chance to share a few thoughts I have following the European Council meeting. Primarily, credit is due to the Taoiseach, the Minister of State and the team across government for steering our Presidency of the EU. In a world that feels increasingly turbulent, Ireland is not just sitting at the table making up the numbers. We are helping to set the agenda and that is really important. We come from an island on the western edge of the Continent and it matters that we have our voice heard and can enact change. EU membership has shaped a modern Ireland. It built our economy, opened doors for generations of young people, backed our family farms and gave homegrown businesses the muscle to trade globally, yet we all know the Union cannot rest on past achievements. The playbook that brought us stability over the past 50 years will not automatically guarantee it for the next 50. That is why the focus on competitiveness, energy costs and a working Single Market hits the right note.

Wearing my hat as Fianna Fáil spokesperson on enterprise and the circular economy, I want to talk straight about what competitiveness looks like on the ground. In Brussels, people talk endlessly about directives, frameworks, roadmaps and benchmarks, but drive through Athenry, Tuam, Gort or Loughrea and ask a shopkeeper or engineering firm owner what competitiveness means. It means opening an electricity bill without dread, finding and keeping decent staff and spending Friday evening running your business or with your family instead of drowning in compliance forms and box-ticking. Ultimately, it is about whether the doors stay open on Monday morning. If we want businesses across Europe to thrive, we have to stop tying their hands behind their backs. Progress on initiatives such as the One Europe, One Market roadmap, the EU Inc. model and the savings and investments union is welcome, if it allows Irish firms to scale without hitting an artificial wall or having to flee across the Atlantic for capital.

We need a bonfire of red tape. Every duplicated declaration, unnecessary audit and overlapping rule drains energy from enterprise. Cutting back on administrative friction is not an ideological debate; it is simply common sense. One practical example is the packaging and waste regulations. In Galway East there is a small business called Mishnóc that makes the most beautiful leather goods. As there is no one-stop shop for European waste and packaging regulations, it would have to independently go throughout member states to find a company to deal with it. That administrative burden is massive. The one-stop shop for VAT has worked so well and we need to see that rolled out for the waste regulations. Mishnóc has essentially stopped selling into all the other European districts because of this and it has hampered its ability heading into the Christmas season.

In terms of energy, the Council was right to highlight how war and global instability have wreaked havoc on power prices. Nowhere is the pain felt more acutely than right here.

Energy is not just an abstract line item for businesses; it is something that hits every home, business and department. The energy bill is loud and present. It has to be dealt with systemically. For a manufacturing organisation in Galway, it is the difference between hiring five more people or shelving an expansion. For a family in a rural parish, it dictates what is left in the bank account come the third week of the month or for farmers, it is a crushing overhead eating away at already razor-thin margins. A long-term pivot away from unsustainable fossil fuel imports makes strategic sense but let us be clear - the green transition cannot become a luxury tax on ordinary people. We need renewables, a modern grid and storage capacity but communities will rightly push back against massive infrastructural upheaval if all they see at the end of it is higher standing charges or dearer bills. The public has to feel the dividend in their pockets, plain and simple. The regulations have to be up to date for the technology and scale of the proposals we are dealing with. I raised that with the Minister of State during Topical Issue Matters around wind energy guidelines.

On agriculture, discussions around the post-2027 CAP framework are critical. I grew up on a farm in County Galway. I am a member of Macra na Feirme. I do not need a briefing document to explain to me how vital CAP is to rural communities. It is not a handout. It is an economic bedrock that keeps schools open, local shops trading, adds high-quality food to our tables and ensures there is resilience in our country for our own food supply and in our rural economies. The Government's fright to ring-fence CAP and cohesion funds in the multi-annual budget has my full backing but the money alone will not fix what is broken if the schemes continue to remain an administrative nightmare. Farmers want to be out in the yard and in the sheds. They do not want to be sitting under fluorescent lights trying to decipher bureaucratic jargon or upload endless geotagged photos of progress on the farm. This is not what they wanted to be a part of or what they signed up to. They need to be given their time back so they can do what they do best, which is keep the farm going.

The Council once again confronted brutal international realities. The ongoing devastation in Ukraine is a grim reminder that peace and sovereign borders can never be taken for granted. Europe must stand firm behind Ukraine's right to defend its territory and secure a durable and just peace. Equally, the catastrophe unfolding across Gaza and the West Bank demands unyielding moral clarity. Ireland has always been respected because we call things as they are. We must keep pressing for full compliance with international humanitarian law, unimpeded aid delivery, the release of hostages, an immediate halt to civilian bloodshed and a viable political path to a two-state solution. Pushing for that is what will define who we are.

Next week, when European leaders gather in Dublin for the EPC summit and the informal Council meeting, it will be a proud moment for our diplomatic standing. However, the measure of our Presidency will not be recorded by group photos or standing on the steps of Dublin Castle. It will be judged by whether apprentices across Europe can afford an apartment, a small manufacturer can keep employing more people, delivering more in their own communities and keep trading better. It will matter when a farmer working seven days a week can get a fair wage for the work they do and the next generation feels Ireland and Europe offer them a future worth staying for.

It is time we had a serious and honest discussion about the direction in which the European Union is heading. There is clearly a growing drift towards militarisation and the centralisation of power, a growing democratic deficit and overreach by EU bureaucrats and unelected officials. These are all the things we warned about during the Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums. which Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party told us at the time would not happen. We now see that EU funds are moving away from cohesion funding, CAP and regional development funding towards greater military spending. That is a very worrying signal in respect of the EU's direction. Under the proposals brought forward by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, Ireland is expected to pay more into an EU budget but get less back on the most important programmes such as CAP. Instead, EU funds will benefit EU arms companies and a militarisation that does not have the support of the Irish people. That runs contrary to Ireland's tradition of military neutrality, a position that has allowed us to pursue an independent foreign policy, stand up for international law and contribute positively to peacekeeping and conflict resolution.

The Government's decision to dismantle the triple lock cannot be viewed in isolation from all of that because it comes alongside deeper involvement in EU military structures and an increasing focus across Europe on rearmament. At a time when the EU is prioritising military expenditure, Ireland should be at the forefront of defending our independent voice, not weakening the safeguards that have protected our neutrality for decades. Sinn Féin and communities all over Ireland will resist any attempt to undermine Ireland's military neutrality. We will ensure the demand for a referendum. If the Government is confident about dismantling the triple lock neutrality protection, then it should be confident enough to put it to the people. We will continue to demand that it does so.

Next week, as Ministers will dine and wine with members of the European Political Community, it now appears likely that our SNAs, nurses and care workers will be on the picket lines once again. They are just asking for a fair wage and for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to recognise the financial pressures ordinary workers and families are under. The tone-deaf approach of this Government is galling. It is forcing vital workers to the picket lines but the bankers, developers and vulture funds have never had to strike for sweetheart deals. The head of Dublin Airport did not have to strike for the Government to give him a pay hike of €95,000, nor did the head of Uisce Éireann for approval of a €118,000 annual increase. The head of the ESB did not have to strike for €92,000 extra, neither did Iarnród Éireann's for €75,000 extra nor the head of the National Stud for a €60,000 pay rise. All were gifted by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It is very easy to see whose side this Government is on. The Irish people are clearly on the side of our SNAs, nurses and other public service workers. We will stand if we have to alongside our striking workers next week until the Government sees and realises the real struggles workers and families are living under.

October's EU Council meeting came at the midway point of Ireland's Presidency. In May and June, while dotting the i's and crossing the t's on plans for the Presidency, the Government might have thought of the public sector workers servicing these events and keeping the country running. Instead, it let the public service pay agreement lapse for the first time in decades. After months of delay and insulting low-ball offers, the Government is now set to host a crucial meeting of the European Political Community next week in the midst of yet more strike action, potentially, unless a resolution is reached at the eleventh hour. That failure delay lies squarely at the feet of the Taoiseach and Government Ministers. European leaders may fly here next week only to be greeted by picket lines of workers asking the Government for a fair deal.

The October Council meeting we are here to discuss was a mixed bag. I welcome the Taoiseach's speech in which he emphasised the focus upon Ukraine, ensuring effective sanctions against Russia and the fast-tracking of Ukraine's accession to the EU. In the Labour Party, we very much welcome all of those things but I ask that the Minister of State convey to the Taoiseach our ongoing concerns about the issue of Aughinish Alumina. It is unconscionable that any exports from Ireland would feed Putin's brutal war machine particularly now as we see the people of Ukraine, civilians and children, under an ongoing onslaught from Putin. I ask that the Minister of State bring that issue in particular back to the Taoiseach.

Speaking of effective sanctions, clearly, on the Israel-Palestine issue we need to see more effective sanctions against Israel. The EU is undermining its own mission as a peace project while we still see trade ongoing with Israel. While the eventual passage of the weakened occupied territories Bill was a late but welcome step, the trade Ireland and other EU countries does with illegal settlements is peanuts compared with the value of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. It is a stain on the EU that that agreement remains in place.

Will the Minister of State ask the Taoiseach to update us on whether he took the opportunity at the European Council meeting in October, given that Ireland holds the Presidency, to make a clear case for ending the agreement, for ensuring it should no longer stand, and to work with like-minded countries to build a coalition against the association agreement to ensure that effective EU pressure would be brought to bear on Israel's genocidal regime?

In his speech the Taoiseach also referenced the climate crisis and the climate catastrophe, but in reality it received only lip service in the read-out of the Council meeting. This is an existential crisis. It necessitates urgent action and co-operation across member states. We welcome the Commission's recent proposal for an EU climate resilience law, but we need to do much more to deal with the climate transition and energy crisis double whammy. Will the Minister of State ask the Taoiseach if he ensured discussion of the proposal from the S and D group in the European Parliament for a temporary energy emergency regulatory tool aimed at fast-tracking the rapid roll-out of renewables? As the Labour Party has said many times in this House, renewable energy is not just about climate protection; it is also about energy security and ensuring better cost-of-living measures. We have seen socialist governments in Spain accelerating the roll-out of renewables, bringing down energy costs for struggling households. Will the Government ensure the renewable energy transition is top of the agenda for the remainder of Ireland's Presidency?

Another issue that needs to be prioritised in the Presidency is housing. It was notably absent from the post-meeting read-out. Again, this is a real concern for the Labour Party. It is a pan-European problem. The work of our MEP, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, through the S and D group, has shown what is possible through EU structures. Aodhán Ó Ríordáin made it clear in his election in 2024 that housing was his number one priority. We saw, thanks to the S and D group, as the Minister of State will know, the establishment of the Parliament's first housing committee last year and the appointment of Dan Jørgensen as housing Commissioner. Young people across the EU are stuck in their childhood bedrooms, locked out of any aspirations to home ownership or even to renting their own home. Next week, the Minister of State and the Taoiseach will be welcoming leaders of every member state to a city with more than 12,000 people in emergency accommodation and homelessness. While clearly Ireland has squandered the opportunity of this Presidency to date to push for EU action on housing, will the Minister of State ask the Taoiseach to ensure investment in social and affordable housing will be at the heart of the next multi-annual financial framework and at EU budgetary level? I am aware the Taoiseach focused on that in his speech.

Before I finish, I will speak briefly about workers' rights. It is concerning, in a country with some of weakest collective bargaining rights in Europe, to see so little emphasis on workers' rights and the use of the EU buzzword "competitiveness" often being used now to suppress the protection of workers' rights. That is a real concern for the Labour Party, the party of European Socialists, of which we are a member, and the S and D group. Will the Minister of State ask the Taoiseach how he is going to stand over the Irish Government's lack of action on workers' rights, particularly when we are likely to see strike action and people on the picket line because of the Government's failure to agree a public sector pay deal next week?

I welcome the opportunity to contribute following the European Council meeting of 15 and 16 October, particularly as Ireland continues its Presidency of the Council of the European Union. I will focus on three areas today, namely, the future of rural communities and farming, children's online safety and Europe's responsibilities in international development.

I will begin with rural Ireland and the future of CAP. As a TD representing Mayo, I know just how important European investment is to our rural communities. I think of programmes such as LEADER. We have so many projects in Mayo run under LEADER. I think of the South West Mayo Development Company, which recently completed a project, Cabots Cookery School, that has completely reinvigorated a rural area. These projects, which are vital in Mayo and rural communities, are investing directly in communities and allowing local people to identify their own priorities. As our negotiations continue on the next European budget, it is essential that rural development remains a priority.

I particularly welcome the hard work and progress being made by the Minister for agriculture, Deputy Heydon. He secured agreement on the Council's partial negotiating position for the Common Agricultural Policy on 26 October. He is over his brief, is having regular engagements with the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, and other interested parties and I know he understands the realities facing Irish farmers on the ground. We know the upcoming changes to CAP are causing huge concerns. We know there is a proposed reduction in expenditure, but I have every confidence that our Minister will fight tirelessly to support the best possible CAP agreement for farmers. This agreement represents important progress recently, but we know that financial negotiations are far from concluded.

I recently met representatives of the IFA in Mayo and I acknowledge the constructive engagement we had and the very real concerns they raised. The figures they presented to me are deeply concerning. According to their analysis, Mayo farmers could face a cumulative loss of €131.1 million over the next CAP period under one proposed payment scenario. This rises to €219.4 million under a lower payment scenario. These potential reductions are highly concerning. The IFA is calling for an increased CAP budget, proper recognition of active farmers, simpler regulations and appropriate transition arrangements. These are concerns that deserve to be heard. I strongly support the Minister's efforts to secure a properly funded CAP that protects farm incomes and the future of rural communities.

Second, on children's online safety, I am chair of the Joint Committee on Children and Equality in the Oireachtas. We recently launched our online safety report with a focus on well-being. In this regard, I welcome the European Council's conclusions on protecting children online. We are looking forward to the EU KIDS Act being examined fully and the proposals concerning a minimum age for social media access being expanded further. We have 45 recommendations in our report and we look forward to them being considered when the EU KIDS Act is transposed into national law.

One of the strongest messages from our work is that responsibility for protecting children cannot simply be placed on parents or schools. Platforms must be designed with children's safety and well-being in mind from the outset. Christmas is coming and people will go to the shops to buy toys. When we go into a shop we can see a stamp on a toy to show that it is safe and we are then happy to give it to our nieces and nephews or our children. Yet, we have our children on platforms that are designed, or look like they are designed, for their age but carry huge risks. Safety by design must be built in from the beginning. With that, considerable importance must be placed on hearing directly from children and young people. At two meetings of our committee, we spoke directly to young people. That is important under Article 12 of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The children talked to us about how much they use the online world for learning, communicating and creating. We have to get the balance right between children's right to privacy and right to safety but also their right to connection, creativity and learning. Ireland has an important opportunity during this EU Presidency to advance meaningful European action on age assurance, platform accountability and harmful design features. We must ensure that children's rights, safety and well-being are central to the development of a European digital policy.

Finally, I will address international development and official development assistance. Last week, I travelled to Ethiopia, with two of the Members in the Chamber, on a cross-party visit that focused on maternal and child health and nutrition. It was a very inspiring but deeply sobering visit. Ethiopia is a country with enormous potential, but one facing serious challenges arising from conflict, displacement, food insecurity and climate shocks. Having spent almost two decades working in childhood development, I know the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child's life, from pregnancy to the age of two. Adequate nutrition during this period is fundamental to healthy physical growth and brain development. Supporting children's nutrition is about much more than providing food, however. It requires access to healthcare, clean water, maternal health services and functioning community support systems. What stuck me was the importance of co-ordination between communities, healthcare workers, governments and international partners. While we were there, we saw absolutely amazing work being done in advancing the digital agenda. We visited a neonatal intensive care unit where there were not enough ultrasounds or tracing machines for the babies but it had already transitioned to paperless data and that data was fed back in at the national level. We also heard how data is being used in refugee camps to give real-time data on available stocks, but then, quite starkly, one can visit a primary care centre where a mother may have walked two hours to get some nutrients and which has no clean water or there is a lack of gloves. There was a stark contrast between some of the aims they had and some of the realities on the ground.

This brings me back to the European Council's discussion on the next multi-annual financial framework. The European Union, and Ireland more specifically, have a long-standing development partnership with Ethiopia. That partnership supports longer term development, including in areas like agriculture, renewable energy, healthcare and education.

These investments matter because humanitarian assistance and long-term development must go hand in hand. We cannot expect a child to thrive without access to basic services and we cannot build sustainable development without peace and stability. As Europe negotiates its next seven-year budget, there will understandably be competing demands. We must invest in our own security, our competitiveness, agriculture and rural communities, but I do not believe that investing in Europe's future and investing in the well-being of vulnerable children elsewhere in the world are mutually exclusive. Development co-operation is also an investment in peace, stability and opportunity. I therefore ask the Government how Ireland intends to ensure that poverty reduction, maternal and child nutrition and humanitarian assistance remain priorities for us in these negotiations. How can we strengthen our co-operation between the EU, Irish Aid, UNICEF and other partner organisations to ensure that funding delivers measurable and lasting improvements? I returned from Ethiopia with an even greater appreciation of the importance of this work, and of UNICEF and our embassy on the ground. Ultimately, Europe's success must be measured not only by its economic strength but also by the difference it makes to people's lives both within Europe and beyond.

Yesterday there was an announcement by the Minister for justice, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, and the Irish Prison Service that they recognise the importance of the old Cork detention barracks, or the old Cork prison, as it is called. People like Thomas Kent were imprisoned, executed and buried there. Terence MacSwiney started his hunger strike there, and many other republicans, not only Cork republicans but also nationalist republicans, were imprisoned there. The Minister has recognised that there is historical value in that building after Cork City Council voted to preserve it and to have it enshrined that it be protected. The Minister, however, has now come out in favour not of totally demolishing the prison but of the majority of it being demolished, with some parts of it being kept because of their historical value. Those parts, however, will be locked behind the new prison walls of the two new prisons being built, so people in Cork or anywhere else who want to visit this site of republican history will be barred by large prison walls and a Government that does not care about our history and our republican heroes but instead only pays lip service to them. I ask the Minister of State to take that to the Minister. To give the Minister of State an idea, at the European Council, Pedro Sánchez might tell him about the regret Spain feels following the demolition of Carabanchel Prison in Madrid, or perhaps the Minister of State's Polish counterparts could fill him in on Pawiak Prison in Warsaw, what that means to Polish people now and how much they regret decisions they made. I ask the Minister of State to take that on board and reach out to his European colleagues and ask them about that.

Another issue I want to raise is the huge issue with Cork city's active travel scheme and the traffic in Cork at the moment. The Government is trying to encourage people to get out of their cars and get the cars off the road, but what we have is a bus service that does not arrive on time, one that is delayed and that does not work. At the same time, we have no light rail, we have cycle lanes that go nowhere and end abruptly, and there is no alternative for people. People therefore have to get in their cars, and now they are being stuck in them for hours. There is absolute gridlock in Cork in the mornings and evenings. What we need is a dependable bus service. Can we look at putting emergency park-and-ride facilities in GAA clubs and other sporting organisations' car parks to get people off the road? We have targets to meet, emission targets in relation to global warming and energy, and at the same time we are driving more and more cars down the road.

I will leave the Minister of State with two things. A man contacted me who had - the Minister of State is kind of shaking his head-----

It is just that this was not raised at the European Council.

Do you know what it means? You are not reaching your targets in relation to emissions, getting cars off the road or global warming. You are driving more and more people into their cars. That creates gridlock, so if you want to know what it means, it is that you are not doing your job here because you are going off to Europe, where you can be the good boy over there, saying, "Oh, we are doing all this."

Thank you, Deputy. I call Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.

No. The Minister of State asked me a question and I answered him. I will give this example.

Your time is up, Deputy, and you are starting to eat into other people's time.

It took a man two hours and 45 minutes to travel from the northside-----

I call Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.

-----to get to Ballincollig for a job interview and he missed the interview by 45 minutes.

Deputy, you will respect the Acting Chair.

You might ask what that has to do with Europe. If you were doing your job, it would have something to do with it.

Go raibh maith agat. I call Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.

When European leaders come here on 12 November, they should consider that the US voters have just rejected Trump's agenda of warmongering against Iran and complicity with Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people and the cost that all of that has had for ordinary people in America, who are hammered with the cost of living. When the American people are rejecting Trump's warmongering and complicity with Israel, the European leaders coming to Dublin on Thursday week are embracing that agenda - to discuss the plan of Europe to double arms expenditure and continue its complicity with the Israeli regime while it commits an ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. That is what the Irish Government is planning to do: trash our triple lock, trash our neutrality and join European leaders who, at the bidding of Donald Trump, want to double the European arms budget from €400 billion to €800 billion and continue trade with the Israeli regime while it massacres Palestinian people, continues the campaign of ethnic cleansing and continues the regime of apartheid. Europe is the biggest trading partner for the Israeli regime, and Ireland is the biggest trading partner in Europe with the Israeli regime that continues that genocide. Then the Government prattles on about a two-state solution, which is a dangerous alibi when the Israeli elections make it clear that there is no political party in the Israeli regime interested in peace or justice for the Palestinian people. They all want to just continue with the genocide and the ethnic cleansing. The Irish Government, however, pretends as if the Israeli regime is a normal one. It does billions' worth of trade with it and it allows Europe to sell weapons to it as it massacres Palestinians. Now the Irish Government wants to extend that logic to hundreds of billions more being spent on weapons and arms while there is no money for workers, who are going out on strike, while there is no money in Spain for housing, and while there is no money for education so that French students have to come out on the streets. Working people are paying for the warmongering and the complicity with genocide. We will protest next Thursday week, marching to the convention centre to say no to war and genocide in Europe.

It is, incredibly, almost five years since Putin invaded Ukraine. The death toll is utterly horrifying, running into the hundreds of thousands of people. However, we cannot close our eyes to the abuses of human rights that are taking place in Ukraine. The Government should not continue to close its eyes. When President Zelenskyy is here in Dublin in a couple of weeks' time, the Minister of State needs to ask him about the policies of internment and forcible conscription into the Ukrainian army that have been rolled out across Ukraine. People are being taken off the streets in unmarked vans to enlistment centres if they cannot produce the right exemption documents in a policy known as busification. Those conscripted have been reported to be injured by the officers enforcing this practice. One man, Andrii Dombrovskyi, who is 26 years old, reported having his leg broken during detainment. This is conscription for the working class, for ordinary people; it is not for the rich because the rich can bribe their way out of conscription. We cannot ignore this. The Minister of State needs to call out the abuses of human rights. The other thing, though, is that the Irish Government needs to not be complicit in these abuses of human rights because right now Ukrainians are suffering under the new temporary protection rules, which require proof of military exemption in order to be able to get temporary protection in the European Union. Ukrainians who do not have it are forced back into a war that they do not support and that they do not want to fight in. The Irish Government is currently complicit by sending back people who have come here seeking refuge, saying they do not want to fight. If they do not have the military exemption documents, they are sent back by the Irish Government to fight.

It flies in the face of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which says that refugees cannot be returned to a country in which they are likely to face a threat to their life. Hungary has opted out of these new rules. The Irish Government should as well. We should also be counting the years Ukrainians have been here under temporary protection towards naturalisation. There is no reason for these people to be denied citizenship while under this protection.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to these post-European Council statements. I welcome the fact that it is a standing item. It gives us, as TDs, the opportunity to contribute to the debate, albeit after the discussion, in the hope that it sticks in the minds of the Minister of State and other Ministers as they participate in other meetings of the European Council. I also note the event that is going to take place on Thursday week with a very significant presence from European leaders, that is, the meeting of the European Political Community. It is an important opportunity to discuss many of the issues facing the Continent at the moment. None of them are simple. They are complex. It is often forgotten in this country that there are many different views on all of these issues. Countries that are in closer proximity to threats that Ireland is not exposed to may understandably have very different approaches. It is the sovereign decision of the Irish people to participate in a Union that features all of that complexity. In joining the European Union, one of the things we joined was the complexity of the Continent. It has been complex for hundreds of years. It is about trying to navigate those differences and the different agendas different countries have.

Having said that, I would like the most recent meeting of the European Council to have said more with regard to the situation in Gaza. The ceasefire, if it can be called a ceasefire, has provided some breathing room but there has not been enough progress on any side. The Palestinian election has been deferred. The Israeli election has taken place but we do not yet know what the outcome will be. Europe has a role. This House has said that. In calling for a review of the European trade agreement, the Taoiseach has also said it. Europe can do more with regard to the conflict in the Middle East. I would like to have seen some of that in the European Council's statement.

I also want to see more on the implementation of a single market for financial services and financial products. I will go on to talk about the different freedoms we have in the EU in a moment but, alongside the free movement of people, the free movement of goods and capital is a cornerstone of what the European Union actually means. My inability, as a consumer in the European Union, to procure a mortgage, an insurance product or another financial product from any EU member state is a restriction. It is a failure of the European Union as a whole to grasp some of these issues, which I agree are very thorny, to deliver a single market for financial products. I know some steps have been taken with regard to regulatory oversight and so on but this is something that would really give consumers value. I accept that we also want to protect consumers but this would give consumers value. It is an example of how we have to move more. We have been able to do it in many other spaces, such as telecommunications and data roaming across the EU. All of these things have given benefits to consumers. It is important that we get the single market for financial products across the line. I urge the Government to do what it can within the remaining period of the Presidency.

I understand that the EU budget is probably the biggest issue facing the Union. From my observations, it appears that Ireland is not taking the easy answer of just passing it on to the next holder of the Presidency. We are doing our very best to find a solution. I know the Government is respected for its ability to bring different countries together.

Along with some of my colleagues, I recently had the opportunity to travel to Westminster to meet with some of the political parties in the UK. I also had some engagements in Belfast as part of an event at Stormont. There is definitely a change in the debate on Britain's role with the European Union. That is welcome. As somebody who really regretted Britain leaving the EU, it is welcome to see that it wants a greater and deeper connection with the EU. I also note Ursula von der Leyen's offer for Canada to become an associate member. I know that Britain and Canada are in different positions, with one being on the European Continent and one not, meaning that one is eligible for membership and the other not, but we have to be very careful about what European Union membership means, particularly in the context of British politicians considering this matter.

The four freedoms of the EU exist for a very valid reason. The social justice check on the free movement of capital and goods is the free movement of people. If you allow capital and goods to be traded, they will be attracted to different centres around Europe. You have to allow Europe's population to avail of the benefits wherever those benefits arise. I would hate to see any dilution of that social justice check on the free movement of capital. The European Union is not just a financial or economic arrangement. It is an arrangement for the people of Europe and it must be of benefit to them. The Irish Government should protect that free movement within the European Union at all costs. We should not allow others to cherry-pick the benefits of membership, whether they are associate members or have a new relationship with the Union. It is not about being inhospitable or not seeing the benefit of common agreement on things. However, the European Union means something and we should protect that.

That leads on to the matter of the candidate countries. I know there will be moves during our Presidency with regard to Montenegro and other countries. There is sometimes a rush to push for EU membership. In some ways, I am glad that it takes so long to become an EU member country. It should. There should be alignment, constraints and minimum standards to be reached in order to become an EU member. That applies to Ukraine as much as to any other country. The aspiration of EU membership should be there but I caution against having any sort of fast-track mechanism. I do not think anyone would argue that Montenegro has been on a fast track.

Ukraine is.

If I may make my point without interruption, I would argue that what is valuable about Europe and what is important to it should be criteria for all member countries. As I have said, the aspiration of membership, association with the European Union and sharing our values are all important but, if the European Union is to mean something, we need to protect those freedoms that are so important. We also need to protect the process by which countries become members of the European Union.

We are at a time of great uncertainty across the globe. The actions of the United States are having a devastating impact on our economy. It continues to pursue its policy of endless wars in the Middle East and ordinary workers across Ireland and the EU are forced to pay the price. Where is the strong leadership from the European Commission to stand up to this bully and say that enough is enough? Other world leaders have shown leadership but the EU, along with Ireland, continues to approach the United States with cap in hand.

As I have said, we are in deeply uncertain times. This is a time when we should be increasing supports for domestic producers rather than increasing our outsourcing of food production to third countries that are beyond our control. Food security is fundamental to a strong and secure state. At present, we import 85% of our fruit and vegetables. I was recently at the launch of Talamh Beo's policy proposal for basic income supports for local food producers. This group has shown that we have enormous potential in this area. In the same year in which the Irish taxpayer is spending upwards of €300 million so that the Government can wine and dine EU officials as part of the EU Presidency, our farmers and primary producers are being told that a 24% reduction in the CAP looks likely.

Our farmers are already struggling, and the EU now wants to drive that blade further in.

Farming in Ireland and across the EU can be viewed as just an expense or just another business because unlike other businesses, when a farm ceases or goes under, it is not just layoffs. It is empty shelves and a generational loss of knowledge. I have to question how the European Commission sets its priorities, driving up military spending while stripping the spend on food and agriculture.

The Minister of State should have a look at China, a state three times the size of the EU in almost every respect from population to landmass. It spends far less than the EU on its military budget. Rather than wasting endless money on weapons, China is driving forward investment in food production and food security, and as China has overtaken the EU on almost every front from research and innovation to manufacturing, maybe it is time that the EU stopped following the United States in its blind policy of weaponising and stockpiling and started looking at China's policies in investing in agriculture.

Where has the Government's voice been in advocating for an increased CAP and in stopping the stripping of CAP to boost the military industry? Every €1 of Common Agricultural Policy funding spent in Ireland generates €1.44 of economic output back into the wider rural economy. This money does not just stop at the farm gate. The funds immediately circulate through secondary rural businesses. Unlike some of the Fine Gael members who said here today that they have faith in the Minister for agriculture, and that we will see a better deal, I unfortunately do not have that same faith.

China has 2 million soldiers. Is that what the Deputy is talking about?

The Minister of State should not say anything. He sold us out with the triple lock, so we will not go down that road right now.

The European Council has acknowledged the problem of soaring energy prices and has asked the Commission to examine further measures-----

This is agriculture.

-----but the reality is that people in Ireland cannot heat their homes, fill their tanks or pay their electricity bill. European statements and reports require real action. The figures tell a very worrying story. According to the CSO, diesel was averaging €2.06 per litre in September. Petrol stood at €1.96 per litre. Diesel prices have increased by 22% in just 12 months, while petrol is up 14%. For somebody filling the standard 60 litre diesel tank, it now costs €123.60. That may not mean much to people living in cities with public transport options but in rural Ireland and places like west Cork, a car is not a luxury. It is a necessity for getting to work, school medical appointments and everyday services.

The Central Statistics Office, CSO, reports that heating oil prices increased by a staggering 58.6% over the past year and the Government's budget threw people €40; my God. Many households have no realistic alternative to oil heating. Older people, families and those on fixed incomes are facing enormous pressure to simply keep their homes warm.

However, the most alarming figure of all is perhaps electricity. Eurostat's latest figures show that Ireland now has the highest household electricity prices in the European Union. Irish households are paying on average 39 cent per KWh which is almost 40% higher than the European average of 28 cent per KWh.

To put that into perspective, a household using 4,200 KWh a year pays roughly €462 more than the average household across Europe. At a time when households are paying some of the highest electricity bills in Europe, the chief executive of the ESB was awarded by the Government - it patted him on the back - with an increase of €91,917 to bring his annual salary to €410,000. It is astonishing. The Government is so out of touch.

People trying to pay their energy bills will find it very difficult to understand that decision, and what is the Government's answer in the budget? It came forward with a very good idea of grants worth €9,000 for solar and batteries. We now find, although the Minister of State has no interest in what I am saying and there is nothing new there, that people in social or council housing will be unable to get that grant. People in community houses will also be unable to get that grant. It is the same as the targeted agriculture modernisation schemes grant for farmers in relation to solar. One hundred will apply, four or five will get it, and the rest will not. However, the Government will put out a glossy story that it is going to be a big give away. This is an outrageous attack on ordinary people in social housing. At a time when families are already struggling with mortgages, rents, insurance and every day living costs, that is simply not acceptable.

These costs are also hitting key sectors of the economy such as our fishing fleet. The Minister of State is out in Europe long enough to bring something home to the fishermen in this country. The Government has walked away from the Rockall situation because it is cowardly. It will take on the real factions out there.

I know of a fisherman - I have already brought it up in the Dáil but it is falling on deaf ears - who paid €22,850 last week to be out fishing for five days. That is not sustainable. That is the end of the fishing industry, and Fianna Fáil stands over that following many decades of turning its back. The Minister of State is out there in Europe, and what has he done? Deputy Timmy Dooley was appointed to a junior Ministry but what has he delivered? It looks like Fine Gael has tied Fianna Fáil's hands on this.

I am also worried about the CAP going forward. It is another serious issue as well.

Incredibly, EU energy costs are way higher than practically every trading block in the world. High energy costs are a self-inflicted wound for the EU. They are a form of self-harm for the EU and are happening for a number of reasons.

First, energy is overtaxed. We are talking about a staple that people need and yet if a person goes into a petrol station today and spends €100 to fill their car, €45 of that will go into Government taxation. The Government took in €4.3 billion from taxes on fuel last year. Some €1.1 billion was on carbon tax. These are the highest figures in the history of the State and came in the jaws of a cost-of-living crisis.

The other element, and this is seldom said, is that this is not just bad for households and families but it is bad for the economy, business and enterprise. Another aspect that is really frustrating and has been mentioned since the start of the Ukraine war is the way the European Union charges for electricity. It charges on the basis of marginal pricing. The last unit of electricity is based on the last unit of production, which is gas. We have been listening to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael talking for nearly four years now about how that needs to be decoupled at some stage but, of course, we ceded that to the EU, so we can do nothing about it, and this is the Minister of State who wants us to cede our military objectives to the EU as well in terms of a defence union.

It is really important that we keep power and control over issues such as energy costs in this country. It is important that we get a devolution of power back from Brussels to Ireland on these issues as well.

We now have 20 minutes for questions and answers. There will be one minute for each.

One of the largest issues I raised was in relation to Sudan and there were statements on that at previous European Council meetings. I put it to the Taoiseach that the Government should make a statement that it will not support Lana Nusseibeh, the candidate for the UN Secretary General. A statement needs to be made to the Emirates that Ireland and the world rejects its facilitation, support and complicity in the genocidal actions of the Rapid Support Forces, RSF, particularly in El Fasher but throughout this war.

The Taoiseach raises Sudan at every Council meeting. It has been in the conclusions in the past and is regularly on the agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council as well. The EU is very much focused on that crisis. It is more than a crisis really. We are talking about millions of people affected by it. It is one of the gravest humanitarian crises the world has ever seen. This is something the Taoiseach keeps coming back to.

Regarding the next Secretary General of the UN, that is a matter for the Taoiseach and Government. As the Minister of State for European affairs, I cannot speak to that.

As I was saying earlier on, people in the United States have rejected Trump's warmongering against Iran, his complicity with Israel for its genocide and the cost that it has had for ordinary working people in America in terms of the cost of living. I put it to the Minister of State that European leaders should be rejecting that agenda but instead they are embracing Trump's agenda with the plan to double arms and military expenditure across Europe. It is also continuing to trade with Israel despite the fact it is committing genocide against the Palestinian people, as well as continuing to allow the flow of arms to Israel and treating it as if it is a normal state. Ireland is also guilty of that. It is Israel's biggest trading partner in Europe and is ramping up military spending while working people are being forced to go out on strike because the Government will not give them a decent pay increase.

Should the Government not learn something from what is happening in the United States and the fact that ordinary people in the United States are turning against this agenda of warmongering, complicity with Israel and the cost that has on ordinary working people?

There is no warmongering by the European Union. It is an institution of peace. There is no warmongering by the Irish Government. We do not have a sufficient military. We want to spend more on our own military. Within the EU, decisions on military spending are matters for the member states themselves. Why are some member states deciding to massively increase their military spending? It is because of the huge threat they face from Russia, a threat the Deputy continually underplays. Today his colleague wanted us to investigate Ukraine. That is what we were asked to do on the floor of this Chamber today, to investigate Ukraine.

We are asking not to send Ukrainians back to fight in a war they do not want to fight in.

No, the Deputy's colleague wanted an investigation and for us to tackle Zelenskyy about the allegations that were made here on the floor of the Dáil. This is at a time when Russia is blowing missiles into civilian populations in Kyiv and around Ukraine, and when we see all sorts of what is called hybrid activity, although some of it is very much kinetic activity, happening on the boundaries of the European Union and within European Union member states. We saw a cyberattack across the European Union just the other day.

When we talk about military spending, some countries are rearming for sure because they want to make sure nobody can get past them and particularly Russia, but we are also talking about increases in spending on cybersecurity, protecting ourselves from these types of threats and making sure we have full vision of what is happening on our seas. That is what is happening at the moment. The European Union is not a defence alliance.

Not yet.

NATO is a defence alliance. We are not part of NATO and are not joining NATO.

We are aligned.

We would not even be able to reach the spending targets NATO members are required to meet.

Why are commanders coming to Ireland regularly?

It will not arise on our side or on their side. There is no ramping-up of military spending. What we are trying to do in Ireland is ensure we have a military that can protect this country.

On trade and relations with Israel, foreign policy is a matter for unanimity at the Council table. Every time there is a referendum, we have a discussion about the veto, the Lisbon treaty and the Nice treaty. The Deputy will have been very strong about protecting the veto. That is the veto in action. If you cannot get every single member state to agree, you cannot implement something at a European Union level from a foreign policy point of view or a sanctions point of view. That is simply the reality. The veto and unanimity is something every member state holds dear. As regards this country's trade with Israel, we have brought in the occupied territories Bill - that is in - but the Deputy is looking for full trade sanctions on Israel and a complete end to trade.

Yes.

The Deputy has to tell the workers in Ireland who would lose their jobs because of that what the consequences would be for them. I do not know the details but I read in the newspaper about Intel employing thousands of people and it actually seems to be, according to newspaper reports, the main source of trade with Israel because of the supply chains that are there. If the Deputy wants to go down to the factory and tell people what the consequences of his proposal would be, then he should do that. However, the Government has to make decisions that are not just in the interest of good foreign policy, which is what we always try to do, but are also in the interests of the Irish people.

Obviously, I condemn the Russian war against Ukraine. It is an horrendous loss of life and limb. It is a meat grinder of a war, unfortunately and shockingly, at the moment. Both Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are losing their lives in horrendous numbers. The truth is that peace will come through a negotiated peace at some stage. The Government is now the President of the Council of the European Union. Has it made any efforts to create a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine? Has it spoken to the Russian ambassador? Has it reached out to Putin's Government? Has it asked Zelenskyy whether there is any way, as holding the Presidency of the European Union and in that role, in which talks could be facilitated towards developing a peace process? I would say "No". I do not think this Government has done that. I do not think it has lifted the phone to anybody on that.

I will explain why. The EU does want peace, but it wants peace on its own terms in relation to this. It does not want a peace to happen immediately. It wants to make sure Russia is well defeated in terms of this war. My worry is that this particular policy of the European Union is actually prolonging the war in Russia and Ukraine. What steps has the Government taken - any steps - to see if it can form negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

It is not a case of peace on the EU's terms; it is peace on Ukraine's terms. It has been invaded and its sovereignty has been attacked. Its territory has been taken by Russia, completely in breach of the principles of the UN we hear about all of the time in the Chamber. There have been offers of peace talks. Zelenskyy has offered to talk peace with Putin, but Putin has constantly refused to talk peace. The Deputy is shaking his head at that.

The Americans-----

This is one thing that lost out in America, by the way, the whole pro-Russia thing. The far left and the far right are identical on Russia. They are absolutely identical. They are always asking, did you not ring the Russian ambassador? It is a crazy question. As if he has any power in the Russian system.

The Government has the Presidency of the European Union.

From the far left, we have heard Ukraine should be investigated. From the far right, we have heard we had better ring the Russian ambassador.

"Far right" is rubbish. Will the Minister of State stop calling people names? It is stupid.

We want peace on Ukraine's terms. Look at what is happening there today. Missiles and drones, probably as we speak, are being sent into civilian buildings by the Russians.

Has the Government picked up the phone?

The Russians need to stop doing that, and that message is clear and consistent from the Taoiseach-----

It is not working.

-----the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission and the high representative for foreign policy.

Is it working?

In recent weeks, we have seen talks talking place between the Finnish President, the Norwegian Prime Minister and Putin. They have debriefed their colleagues on that, but there is absolutely no evidence that Putin wants to end this war. He should and he must. The principles of the UN Charter dictate that he should.

The Government has taken no steps.

Sorry, it is not the Deputy's time. I call Deputy Seán Crowe.

In his opening statement, the Taoiseach talked about a long meeting and full agenda. The priorities included competitiveness and the next multi-annual financial framework, MFF. There was scant detail about the negotiations around the MFF, but we know development aid and development partnerships are on the chopping block. One of my colleagues talked about how we have just returned from Ethiopia as part of a cross-party visit organised by UNICEF Ireland, where we saw with our own eyes the positive impact of this aid and the dire consequences should it be withdrawn, like USAID under President Trump. I have seen hunger and poverty in Ireland but not on the same scale or to the same extreme. Will the Minister of State outline what the Government's position was on maintaining the development budget as it is? Will we fight for this life-saving, life-changing assistance?

The Taoiseach talked about the proposals for the increase in the budget and so on, but this area of funding looks as though it may be cut. When we talked to a lot of the groups within Ethiopia, the big concern was who will replace USAID, but more important, what the response of Europe will be to that.

I will set out the national position first because it is very important to say this. It is accepted around the world. We are one of the few countries that are not cutting development aid. In fact, we are one of the few that are increasing it in our national budgets. It is important to say that. In that sense, I agree with the Deputy.

On the MFF, I can talk all day about that because I had the privilege of chairing the negotiations at my level before they went to the leaders. We were the honest broker and we had to get a negotiated agreement. It is not misinformation. We have set out the figures and it is extremely complex.

Specifically on Global Europe, which incorporates foreign aid, the negotiations are still under way and I say that to our colleagues in agriculture as well. Under Global Europe, the current figure in the current multi-annual financial framework, what we are spending at the moment over the seven-year period, is €120 billion. Under our negotiating box, it goes up to €178 billion. While that is not as high as the €215 billion figure the Commission wanted, at current prices it is still a 48% increase on what we are spending at the moment. That message is very difficult to get across because there is a range of figures and they all relate to different things in the negotiating box. Even some experts are picking the wrong figure to compare things. We should compare what we are spending already and what we are proposing, and that is a 48% increase under current prices. On what the Commission proposed, yes, we have reduced the €215 billion figure, under current prices, which the Commission looked for, but we will still be spending a lot more than what we are spending at the moment.

These negotiations have a way to go. I cannot guarantee that figure will stay; it is up to the leaders.

We have protected agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy. I had a very good meeting with the IFA and I know the Taoiseach has also discussed things with the president of the IFA. The negotiations are not finished and I have to be very careful about that. Why do we protect the Common Agricultural Policy? It is because all the member states, with the exception of a small number, want to. Even some of the contributor countries want to protect the Common Agricultural Policy. Within the national and regional partnership plans, there are other funds where flexibilities have been introduced that could potentially help the agriculture situation and make up some of the difference between the last MFF and this MFF. A lot of that remains to be worked out, but I am confident we will reach a situation where the Common Agricultural Policy will be protected and I will certainly apprise the IFA of that position. I am happy to meet Sinn Féin TDs who have talked about 20% cuts to CAP. I am more than happy to meet and talk with them about that.

Let us be clear: Putin is a warmonger, authoritarian and imperialist. However, so are many of the powers in the European Union whose leaders will be here next week and who the Minister of State will be meeting with. Many of the European leaders' hands are dripping with the blood of dead Palestinians massacred by Israel, courtesy of the trade, arms, funding, political support and impunity given to it by the European Union. The EU is every bit as culpable and guilty as Vladimir Putin but the Government does not say that. In fact, it welcomes the EU with open arms and embraces its agenda to rearm Europe. It has renamed it so that it is entitled ReArm Europe. That is the agenda.

The reference made by Deputy Paul Murphy was to the fact that if refuge means anything, it means the right of people not to fight in a war they do not want to die in. As of August, Ukrainians coming here will not get temporary refuge if they do not have their military exemption from the Zelenskyy government, which is currently rounding up people and insisting they fight even if they do not want to. That is conscription. Part of why there was an Irish revolution was because people were against conscription in the First World War. We are now enforcing conscription against young Ukrainians who do not want to fight in a slaughter. The Government is assisting in that and if it does that to Ukrainians, it will probably do it to Irish people in the future.

Thankfully, our ancestors battled against the conscription of 1918, which was conscription on behalf of a different country and an oppressor. It is a wrong comparison.

And you are joining in with the imperialist war effort.

It is also gravely wrong to compare EU leaders, who are our friends, neighbours and in some cases almost our cousins, to Putin. That is wrong.

You are assisting a genocide.

That is wrong.

It is wrong that they are assisting a genocide.

It is also wrong of the Opposition to describe this meeting as wining and dining our leaders. When you bring your neighbours and friends to your home, you put on a good show. You tidy things up, you invite them in, you have a conversation and you put the best food and wine that you have out. That is common courtesy; it is normal practice. I am certainly looking forward to this meeting next week, which will bring together almost 50 countries of the world. Almost all of the democratic world will be in Ireland. They are our friends, our allies and most of them share the same values as us.

They are arming a genocide.

It is wrong to compare them to Putin. It is crazy to do so.

They are arming a genocide.

Aontú is stronger on workers' rights, the cost-of-living crisis, public services, tax justice, Gaza and Irish unity than anything in Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil is closer to Trump on all these issues than Aontú. Calling people names, no matter what side of the political divide they are on, shows an intellectual deficiency on the Minister of State's side of the debate.

Albert Reynolds and Charlie Haughey reached out to the IRA in the eighties and early nineties for the purpose of trying to create peace negotiations. Many within the political establishment here landed on them and on John Hume like a tonne of bricks. They said there was no way republicans had any interest in peace whatsoever, but they did so anyway. They took a chance, tested the republican movement in the effort of peace and the peace we enjoy today is a result of those individuals taking that chance and making that effort.

However, here is the Minister of State today, in the dying days of the European Presidency, admitting that his Government has made absolutely no effort whatsoever to see if we could create peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. That is a disgrace.

Deputy Tóibín, I will allow the Minister of State to come in very quickly, and then Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

If I heard the Deputy right, he suggested we are fast-tracking the EU application for Ukraine, which he seemed to be critical of, but we are not fast-tracking it. He also suggested we call the Russian ambassador. We are not going to do either of those things and we do not land on people like a tonne of bricks. We supported the efforts of the USA to try to get peace. We supported conversations that President Stubb had with the Norwegian Prime Minister and Putin. We support any lines of communication that would be open-----

What does that mean?

-----but Putin has to stop this war. There is an invasion going on, so it has to be stopped. That has to happen.

Through negotiations.

I will not just talk about Russia. The contribution from Sinn Féin today about how we should be emulating China was one of the strangest statements I have heard in this House in some time. Deputies were favourably talking about China's military and agricultural policy. If that is the Sinn Féin policy now, I think it should explain that to the people. If it is talking about neutrality on the one hand and then telling us how great China's military spending is - 2% of its GDP is on two million soldiers - something very strange is going on in Sinn Féin.

I think that is probably one of the milder examples of putting words into people's mouths in the past 40 minutes. The Minister of State knows himself that it was scutter, but we will move on from that.

I recall the Minister of State in the media about a week and half ago talking about bringing debate in these Chambers to a new depth. It was about two days later that his Taoiseach accused the Opposition variously of being Nazi sympathisers, in the pocket of Putin and acolytes of Trump. The Minister of State will forgive the Opposition for taking his appeals for high-minded debate with a grain of salt.

Deputy, we want to hear the Minister of State reply, instead of storytelling. We want questions.

Deputy Boyd Barrett is right. There is profound complicity on the part of the EU in relation to what is going on in Israel. Can I get an update on the EU-Israel trade agreement and the need for that to be suspended? That human rights clause has been broken dozens upon dozens of times.

The Deputy's time is up. I will allow the Minister of State 30 seconds to reply to that question before he moves on to his statement.

Again, I answered that question earlier. With foreign policy, there are rules on the veto in trade policy and other rules, and it has not been possible to get agreement around the table. It is as simple as that. Ireland has been in the vanguard of trying to get the strongest possible action there. That is recognised across Europe and the world, except of course on the Opposition benches of this House.

That is the end of the question-and-answer session. I call on the Minister of State to give his final statement and reply.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí as a gcuid ráitis agus ceisteanna. Tapóidh mé an deis seo labhairt go gairid faoi mhíreanna eile ar chlár ghnó Comhairle Eorpach mhí Dheireadh Fómhair. Rinne na ceannairí plé straitéiseach maidir le méadú. Thug an Taoiseach faisnéis do na ceannairí maidir leis an dul chun cinn atá déanta againn le linn téama Uachtaránachta na hÉireann, lena n-áirítear dúnadh trí chaibidil bhreise le Montainéagró agus caibidil breise amháin leis an Albáin. D’éascaíomar freisin d’oscailt dhá bhraisle eile leis an Úcráin agus leis an Moldóiv. Tá sé de rún againn dúnadh na gcaibidlí uile leis an Montainéagró a éascú faoi dheireadh na bliana, ar choinníoll go gcuirfidh Montainéagró na hathchóirithe uile atá fágtha chun feidhme. Tá an pointe seo an-tábhachtach, agus d’ardaigh an Teachta McAuliffe é sin.

Mhalartaigh na ceannairí tuairimí freisin faoi thograí an Choimisiúin Eorpaigh maidir le hathchóirithe inmheánacha an Aontais Eorpaigh i bhfianaise tuilleadh méadaithe, comhtháthú de réir a chéile agus clásail chosanta le haghaidh conarthaí aontachais amach anseo. Bhí plé straitéiseach ag na ceannairí maidir le cur chuige cuimsitheach an Aontais Eorpaigh i leith imirce, agus mheas siad dul chun cinn i gcur chun feidhme a gconclúidí roimhe sin.

Tá an tAontas Eorpach in áit níos fearr anois ó thaobh imirce neamhrialta de ná mar a bhí sé le breis agus deich mbliana anuas ó tharla go bhfuil laghdú ag teacht ar líon na ndaoine a thagann isteach, go bhfuil an comhshocrú maidir le himirce agus tearmann i bhfeidhm ó mhí an Mheithimh, agus gur ghlac an Chomhairle leis an rialachán maidir le filleadh go foirmiúil go luath i mí Dheireadh Fómhair.

Ceann de thosaíochtaí uileghabhálacha atá ag Uachtaránacht na hÉireann is ea leanúint de chur chuige atá cóir, daingean agus bunaithe ar rialacha a chur chun cinn maidir le himirce, tearmann agus filleadh. Tá an méid sin bunaithe ar cheithre phríomhthosaíocht: an Comhshocrú maidir le hImirce agus Tearmann a chur chun feidhme go hiomlán; cosaint theorainneacha seachtracha an Aontais Eorpaigh a neartú; ullmhacht do ghéarchéimeanna ag na teorainneacha sin a mhéadú; agus leanúint de chomhpháirtíochtaí a chothú le tríú tíortha. Ina theannta sin, táimid ag obair leis na ballstáit agus leis an gCoimisiún chun gníomhaíochtaí a chur chun cinn, ar gníomhaíochtaí iad a bhunaítear sa Phlean 5 Phointe chun Cosc a Chur ar Theacht Isteach Neamhdhleathach Líon Ollmhór Daoine, chun Teacht Roimhe agus chun Freagairt dó, rud a foilsíodh tar éis na n-imeachtaí in Ceuta.

D’fhill na ceannairí ar thopaic shlándáil agus chosaint na hEorpa ag Comhairle Eorpach mhí Dheireadh Fómhair. Ar fud an Aontais Eorpaigh, tá níos mó á infheistiú ag na tíortha ina gcumais slándála agus cosanta náisiúnta. Tá na cinntí á ndéanamh acu ina dtíortha féin. Tá siad uile ag déanamh amhlaidh ar bhealach lena bhfuil ciall dá staid agus dá gcur chuige beartais féin ar leith, agus do shaintréithe sonracha bheartas eachtrach gach ballstát. I gcás na hÉireann, is éard atá agus a bheidh ann ná beartas neodrachta míleata. Mar sin féin, tá sineirgí ann ar féidir linn iad a bhaint amach trí bheith ag obair le chéile ar leibhéal an Aontais Eorpaigh ar bhealach lena gcomhlánaítear a bhfuil á dhéanamh againn ar an leibhéal náisiúnta, inar tháinig méadú 43% ar mhaoiniú le haghaidh cosanta ó bhí 2020 ann.

Chuir na ceannairí fáilte roimh an gcéad tuarascáil ullmhachta cosanta bhliantúil mar mheasúnú bonnlíne tábhachtach ar ullmhacht chosaint na hEorpa. Uirlis luachmhar atá ann chun faireachán a dhéanamh ar dhul chun cinn ar fud na réimsí cumais tosaíochta agus príomhchumasóirí ullmhachta cosanta a shainaithint; lena n-áirítear ceanglais chumais a chomhchuibhiú, rochtain ar mhaoiniú don tionscal a fheabhsú, spleáchais ar an slabhra soláthair a laghdú agus amlínte soláthair a ghéarú chun tacú le nuálaíocht. Le roinnt seachtainí agus míonna anuas, bhí tionchar suntasach ag gníomhaíocht hibrideach ar na ballstáit, ar gníomhaíocht í atá ag titim amach níos minice agus atá níos místuama ná riamh. Tá treocht shoiléir ann: feachtas hibrideach comhordaithe atá ann atá dírithe ar shlándáil, athléimneacht agus boinn dhaonlathacha an Aontais Eorpaigh, a bhallstáit agus a chomhpháirtithe a chur i mbaol, agus ar an mbonn a bhaint díobh sin. Is mian leis an Rúis muid a scaradh ó chéile agus ár dtacaíocht don Úcráin a lagú. Ní éiróidh léi. Tháinig an Chomhairle Eorpach ar chonclúidí láidre maidir le feachtas gníomhaíochta hibridí na Rúise. Fáiltím roimh ghlao na gceannairí go dtreiseodh an tAontas Eorpach ár n-iarrachtaí agus go mbainfeadh sé úsáid iomlán as na hionstraimí agus na sásraí uile atá ar fáil chun cur i gcoinne na gníomhaíochta sin. Bhí rudaí eile ar an gclár, ar nós chúrsaí COP31, cúrsaí faoin Artach, agus Ceuta agus Melilla. Bhí an Taoiseach ag caint faoin tSúdáin freisin.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce this important legislation to the House. The publication of this Bill represents a significant milestone in the development of a modern regulatory framework for short-term accommodation rentals in Ireland and in the fulfilment of our obligations under the EU Short-Term Rental Regulation. That regulation, which came into effect on 20 May, provides for the collection and sharing of data relating to short-term accommodation rental services and aims to enhance transparency and oversight across the sector.

At its core, this Bill is about establishing a clear, fair and effective framework for the regulation of short-term letting in Ireland. It will ensure that hosts and platforms operate within a consistent set of rules, that public authorities have access to the information necessary to perform their functions effectively and that policymaking is informed by reliable evidence.

Over the past decade, the short-term letting sector has undergone significant expansion. The emergence and growth of online platforms have transformed the way accommodation is marketed, booked and provided creating new opportunities for tourism and generating additional income for many property owners. As a result, short-term letting now forms a substantial and increasingly important part of Ireland's tourism accommodation offering.

The scale of this activity is considerable. Pending the establishment of the national register, Fáilte Ireland continues to produce monthly estimates of online short-term letting activity based on data derived from online listings. These estimates indicate that as of September 2026, approximately 31,770 short-term letting properties were advertised across two of the largest booking platforms operating in the Irish market.

Despite this growth, the State has lacked the tools necessary to obtain a complete and accurate picture of the sector. To date, there has been no comprehensive national register of short-term letting properties and limited mechanisms for gathering consistent information about activity in the market. As a result, policymakers and regulators have faced challenges in monitoring the sector and understanding its impact at national and local level.

This Bill addresses that gap. It will establish for the first time a national registration framework for short-term lettings involving stays of up to 21 consecutive nights and will give effect to the data-sharing arrangements required under European Union law. The Bill designates Fáilte Ireland as the competent authority responsible for administering the framework. It will establish and maintain the national register, operate the single digital entry point required under the EU regulation and oversee the collection and sharing of relevant information. Together, these measures will provide a more comprehensive understanding of short-term letting activity across the State and support effective regulation of the sector.

The benefits of this approach are significant. It will provide clarity and certainty for hosts regarding their obligations, establish consistent requirements for online platforms and ensure that public authorities have access to the information required to support informed decision-making in areas such as tourism, housing and regional development. Importantly, the framework also supports the Government's broader objective of ensuring that long-term residential accommodation is prioritised in areas experiencing housing pressures. In that regard, the Bill supports both tourism and housing policy objectives.

Under the Bill, all hosts providing short-term accommodation rental services will be required to register with Fáilte Ireland, which will issue a unique registration number for each registered unit. Registration will be straightforward and fully online. The system has been designed to minimise administrative burden while ensuring that the information necessary for effective regulation is collected. A nominal registration fee of €25 will apply, which will be prescribed by Fáilte Ireland through regulations. Once registered, hosts will be required to display their registration number on all advertisements and listings relating to the accommodation unit. Fáilte Ireland will verify information submitted by hosts to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the register.

The obligations established by the Bill do not rest solely with hosts. Online short-term rental platforms will also be required to play an active role in supporting compliance.

Platforms must display registration numbers, conduct random checks on listings, submit specified rental activity data to Fáilte Ireland and remove or disable access to listings, where required by law. These obligations reflect the central role played by platforms within the short-term accommodation market and are fully aligned with the requirements of the EU short-term rental regulation.

A regulatory framework is only as effective as its enforcement mechanisms. For that reason, the Bill provides Fáilte Ireland with the powers necessary to monitor compliance and investigate suspected breaches. The legislation provides for the appointment of registration officers and authorised officers with powers to conduct inspections, carry out investigations and require the production of records and information, where necessary. These powers are proportionate, practical and essential to the effective operation of the framework.

The Bill also establishes a graduated enforcement regime. In the case of hosts, enforcement measures include fixed payment notices and summary offences. For online short-term rental platforms, the Bill provides for an administrative sanctions process where contraventions of legal obligations occur. Where appropriate, matters may be referred to an independent panel of adjudication officers that I will appoint. The panel will have the authority to determine whether a breach has occurred and, where warranted, to impose financial sanctions of up to 2% of annual worldwide turnover. This approach ensures that enforcement measures are proportionate, effective and accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards.

A key requirement of the registration process is that hosts must confirm that their accommodation is planning compliant. The Government recognises the importance of clarity and consistency in this area. Accordingly, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy James Browne, obtained approval to publish the national planning statement for short-term letting activity on 3 November. The statement establishes a clear and consistent planning framework for the sector and provides certainty for hosts, local authorities and communities.

The planning framework set out in the statement restricts the approval of new planning permissions for short-term letting activity in cities and larger towns with populations exceeding 20,000. At the same time, it provides a pathway for existing operators to regularise their position through a presumption in favour of granting retention permission in specified circumstances where properties have operated continuously as short-term lets for at least seven years and no enforcement action has been taken. A simplified administrative version of the application process for retention specifically for these short-term lets was introduced on 29 September 2026.

The Bill does not alter the existing arrangements for genuine home-sharing. The letting of a room or rooms in a person's principal private residence will remain exempt from planning requirements. A home-sharer may also continue to let their entire principal private residence for up to 90 cumulative days per year while temporarily absent. Beyond that threshold, planning permission for change of use will continue to be required.

The Bill also incorporates an important transitional arrangement for existing hosts. Hosts operating in locations with populations below 20,000 have a two-year period within which to regularise their planning position. This provides a proportionate pathway to compliance while supporting an orderly transition to the new framework.

The legislation contains a number of additional reforms. It strengthens co-operation between Fáilte Ireland, public authorities and other competent bodies in the performance of their functions under both national and European legislation, including the short-term rental regulation and the Digital Services Act.

The Bill also establishes a dedicated registration framework for limited visitor stays in purpose-built student specific accommodation. This is not a new activity. Many student-specific accommodation providers already accommodate visitors outside academic term time, making productive use of otherwise vacant capacity. Nationally, the supply of purpose-built, student-specific accommodation continues to expand, with 16,704 beds delivered since 2017, bringing total stock to more than 49,700 beds. Current projections indicate a need for approximately 42,000 additional student beds over the coming decade.

The purpose of these provisions is to place existing practice on a clear statutory footing through a proportionate registration framework. Registration will operate on a three-year cycle and is designed to complement, rather than duplicate, existing registration requirements with the Residential Tenancies Board, which are focused on the landlord-tenant relationship. The new framework will provide greater transparency and regulatory oversight of visitor accommodation activity and is strategically important for tourism as it provides a clear regulatory basis for the continued use of otherwise vacant student accommodation during holiday periods. This supports accommodation capacity at times of peak demand, improves the efficient use of existing assets and contributes to a more resilient and sustainable tourism sector, while preserving the primary role of these developments as student accommodation.

The Bill also modernises elements of Ireland's wider tourist accommodation regulatory framework. It updates provisions governing hotels, guesthouses, hostels, holiday camps, caravan sites and camping sites to reflect contemporary operational, administrative and regulatory requirements. At the same time, the legislation repeals a number of outdated provisions relating to accommodation categories that no longer reflect current tourism practices.

A key element of these reforms is the introduction of an independent appeals process for decisions relating to statutory registers established under tourism legislation. While the original legislative framework, dating back to the Tourist Traffic Act 1939, did not provide for such a mechanism, modern regulatory systems place a strong emphasis on transparency, accountability and procedural fairness. The new appeals process will ensure that all registered accommodation providers have access to an independent review of registration and grading decisions, strengthening confidence in the administration of the registers and bringing the framework into line with modern standards of good regulatory practice.

This Bill represents a practical and proportionate response to a rapidly evolving sector. It will establish, for the first time, a comprehensive national framework governing short-term letting activity across the State, strengthen regulatory oversight, improve the quality of information available to public authorities and ensure that Ireland fully implements its obligations under European Union law. Critically, the Bill will provide, for the first time, a comprehensive picture of tourist accommodation provision across the State. Through the establishment and modernisation of statutory registers, public authorities will have access to more complete, accurate and up-to-date information on accommodation providers and accommodation capacity. This enhanced visibility will support better policymaking, more effective enforcement and a stronger evidence base for decisions affecting tourism, housing and regional development.

Beyond short-term letting, the Bill delivers the most significant modernisation of Ireland's tourist accommodation registration framework in decades, updating legislative provisions, strengthening governance arrangements and introducing independent appeals processes across a range of statutory registers. Most importantly, it reflects the Government's determination to address the impact that the growth of short-term letting can have on housing availability in areas facing significant housing pressures, while continuing to support a vibrant and sustainable tourism sector.

By bringing greater transparency and oversight to the sector, the Bill will help ensure that homes are used for their intended purpose, provide policymakers with the information needed to respond to emerging pressures and support a more balanced approach to the use of accommodation across the State. In doing so, it will contribute to protecting housing supply for local communities, while maintaining the important role that tourism plays in our economy and regions.

I look forward to engaging constructively with colleagues across the House as the Bill progresses through the legislative process. I thank Members for their time.

I put on record my complete opposition to the Minister's plan to rush the Short-Term Letting and Tourism Bill through the House. Doing so will severely hinder our collective ability to properly scrutinise this legislation. The Government has made an absolute shambles of this. Having had two and a half years to prepare the legislation, the Minister is now scrambling to meet his own deadline of 1 December, forcing through a Bill with serious implications for tourism, rural employment, local businesses and housing.

The EU regulation was adopted in April 2024. The Government knew what was required and when it had to be delivered, yet the Minister has scheduled Committee Stage, Report Stage and Final Stage of this Bill for one single day next week. He has had two and a half years to prepare the legislation and is providing one day in the Dáil to scrutinise it. That is simply unacceptable.

What makes this particularly disgraceful is the treatment of the organisations and individuals who took time and participated in the pre-legislative scrutiny. In the past year, at the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, we engaged with stakeholders and listened to detailed evidence from tourism providers, housing organisations, local authorities and industry representatives. These organisations committed considerable time, resources and expertise to that process. They attended hearings, prepared submissions, answered questions and raised legitimate concerns about how these regulations would operate in practice. They did so in good faith, believing their input would contribute to the committee's recommendations and be laid before the Minister before the final legislation was published. Yet, the Minister went ahead and published the Bill on budget day - on budget day of all days - before our committee had even completed its pre-legislative scrutiny work or published the report. What message does that send to the groups and individuals we engaged with? It is that their time was wasted, their expertise was irrelevant and that the Government was simply going through the motions. There is considerable frustration among those stakeholders who feel completely disrespected by how the Minister has treated this process and they have every reason to feel that way. Pre-legislative scrutiny is supposed to improve the legislation, identify problems and ensure those affected have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Instead, the Government has made a complete farce of this important parliamentary process.

To make matters worse, much of the committee's work took place without the national planning statement being available - we begged and begged for it time and again - despite planning being one of the most contentious aspects of the entire framework. How could stakeholders properly assess the implications of the Bill, when such a fundamental part of the regulatory regime was missing? I will let my colleague, Deputy Ó Broin, who will speak next, highlight the concerns Sinn Féin has about the planning elements of the Bill but it is important to point out that the Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage did not have any role in the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill.

Beyond the treatment of the Oireachtas and the stakeholders, another issue demands attention. It is the absolute disaster that has been the Government's communication with short-term letting providers about their new obligations. Across Mayo and throughout the country, people are contacting us because they simply do not know where they stand. These are people running legitimate tourism businesses, many of them small family operations, which have served their communities and visitors for years. They are worried about whether they will be able to continue trading. They are unsure whether their properties meet the new requirements, whether they need planning permission and what evidence they must provide. Up to now, they were also wondering what costs would be put on the planning process. I see that the Minister said it will be €25. The Government expects people to navigate these changes within an extraordinarily tight timeframe. The Fáilte Ireland register is due to open on 1 December, with the short-term letting operators required to register before 31 December. Who thought it was sensible to introduce such significant changes with a deadline falling during the Christmas period? What will happen if an application encounters difficulties when public offices are closed or operating reduced services? Where are the providers supposed to turn for reliable advice? People are being left to piece together information themselves, relying on industry groups, public representatives and conflicting interpretations of Government announcements. That is no way to treat people whose livelihoods depend on getting these decisions right. It is not simply uncertainty about paperwork. For some providers, it is uncertainty about their income, their investment and the future of their family businesses. These people feel completely disrespected. They have spent years providing accommodation, supporting local tourism and contributing to their communities. The least they deserve is clear information, reasonable timelines and a Government willing to engage properly with their concerns.

I will turn briefly to the wider implications for tourism, particularly in rural Ireland. Tourism is an economic lifeline for communities in the west of Ireland, including places like Mayo. It supports thousands of jobs directly and indirectly and sustains hotels, restaurants, cafés, pubs, shops, transport operators and visitor attractions. In many rural communities, tourism is one of the few industries capable of generating substantial local employment and keeping young people living and working in the area. Self-catering accommodation is an essential part of that tourism economy in some areas. Traditional holiday cottages, converted farm buildings and family-run properties provide visitor accommodation in places where hotel capacity is limited. When visitors stay in Achill, Westport, Belmullet or Ballina, their spending supports businesses throughout the local economy. If that accommodation disappears, the impact will go far beyond the individual provider. This is where I have serious questions about the Government's approach. Has the Minister assessed how many tourism beds could be lost if providers withdraw from the market because of these regulations? What assessment has been carried out of the consequences for rural employment, visitor numbers and local businesses? Crucially, what is the Government's plan to mitigate any reduction in tourism accommodation capacity. Will there be incentives to encourage investment in additional hotel beds in rural and high amenity areas? Will small hotels, guest-houses and family-run accommodation providers be supported to expand? We cannot spend millions promoting the Wild Atlantic Way and encouraging tourists to visit the west and then fail to ensure there is sufficient accommodation for them. Building new hotel capacity takes time, investment and certainty. The Government needs to demonstrate it has thought this through and is not just hoping the market will adjust.

Sinn Féin has consistently supported the regulation of short-term letting. We want properties returned to the long-term, residential market in areas where housing demand is acute. In recent decades, huge commercial investors have been allowed to buy up huge portfolios of properties in communities. These vulture funds make huge profits and pay very little tax. There has to be a clear distinction between that activity and legitimate rural tourism accommodation. Removing a traditional holiday cottage from the tourism market does not automatically create a permanent home but it could mean lost visitors, lost spending and lost employment. That distinction must be reflected in the implementation of these regulations.

We support a national register, proper standards and effective enforcement but we also need a practical, affordable process for existing operators, sufficient resources for Fáilte Ireland and local authorities and a clear plan to protect local tourism capacity. Will the Minister explain how local authorities are expected to process thousands of additional planning applications or how Fáilte Ireland will have sufficient resources to enforce these new regulations? On 1 January next, will enforcement officers be out in force to inspect short-term let properties to ensure they are compliant? That gets to the heart of the fear and uncertainty that genuine short-term letting operators are feeling. This is not how legislation affecting thousands of businesses and communities should be handled. People deserve clarity, not confusion and they deserve proper legislation, not a last-minute rush to meet Government-imposed deadlines. I ask the Minister to provide that clarity this evening and to please reconsider his intention to rush this through the Dáil next week. It is far too important.

The Minister needs to trust the local authorities, which know their areas, to be able to make decisions about getting the balance right between housing that is desperately needed for staff in hotels and other tourism amenities and the amount of accommodation needed in an area to support the tourism objectives in that area. Rushing this through is a mistake and it is one that will be regretted by the Government.

It is hard to over-estimate the extent of the mess the Minister and his colleague, Minister for housing, Deputy Browne, have made of this entire episode. We have been discussing the need to regulate short-term letting in this House for a decade, since I was elected in 2016. During that entire period, thousands of homes that were built for long-term residential occupation, predominantly in urban areas, but also some rural parts of the country, have been acquired by commercial interests and flipped into short-term letting. They have been breaking the planning laws of the State, in many cases for a decade. In turn, they have been having an enormous impact on our housing and homelessness crisis.

This is the not the first time the Government has botched regulation of short-term letting. The Minister's party colleague, Eoghan Murphy, made a mess of his regulations in 2019. The proposal in front of us today started life in 2022. Deputy Conway-Walsh was absolutely right to highlight the absurdity of the length of time it has taken to get here compared with the amount of time we have to address the Bill in the House. It has been more than four years in the making and yet here we are. While there is virtually no opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, the planning policy statement that was agreed by the Cabinet yesterday has not undergone a single second of Oireachtas scrutiny.

This planning policy statement is not a policy statement. It includes new planning law agreed by Cabinet without any debate, without any Oireachtas scrutiny or any opportunity for Members of the House to amend it and without a single vote. That is an utter disgrace.

Not only has the Minister caused enormous confusion among the providers of much-needed tourism product in predominantly rural high-amenity areas, people who are using properties on their own land, properties that would never be in the rental market, but there is nothing at all in this planning policy statement that will see the return of long-term residential properties in housing estates in cities, towns and villages to long-term use. Let me explain why. The population threshold of 20,000 is utterly absurd. It is not based on any objective criteria of housing need, rental supply or homelessness. It is a grubby political fudge to keep this Government together and we are all the worse for it.

There should be a lead-in period for folks in rural communities to be able to regularise planning. I have no issue with that, but I think two years is probably too long and much longer than I would have proposed. The really appalling part of James Browne's planning policy statement is a seven-year grandfather clause. What this document says is that regardless of being in an area population above or below 20,000, someone who has been breaking the planning rules of this State for seven years or more up to 1 December will get a get-out-of-jail-free card and will get a presumption to grant planning permission. This applies even to a large commercial entity that has snapped up family properties all over the State and is letting them out on short-term lets for higher amounts of money. That is particularly bad in our large urban centres, but it will also be really bad for communities in the Connemara Gaeltacht, parts of the Cooley Peninsula and elsewhere.

This is not about supporting much-needed tourism product - we support that. It is about allowing people who have broken our planning laws consistently to be rewarded and allowed to do so into the future. How do I know? It is because the report the Government commissioned from the Housing Agency, produced by Indecon, found that 70% of those people advertising properties, particularly home properties, on Airbnb have been trading for over seven years. Unless a tiny number of these have been hit with enforcement under the Eoghan Murphy rule - that really is a very small number - they will all get through straight away.

Those of us who were on the housing committee together discussed these issues for a long time before the Minister moved to his current portfolio. In addition to the genuine concerns that my colleague Deputy Conway-Walsh raised with respect to the tourist economy in rural and high-amenity areas, this will not do a single thing to assist those of us whose primary interest is the supply of long-term residential homes to buy or rent and addressing growing levels of homelessness. That is why the Minister has got this so wrong. We set out an alternative; we showed him time and time again how this could be done properly to get that balance in those rural high-amenity areas but also get those properties that got planning permission for long-term residential use back into long-term residential occupation. The Minister has ignored us, just as Eoghan Murphy did in 2019.

As a consequence, not only will this planning policy statement and the planning regime be as much of a failure as its predecessor in 2019, but we will end up with the weakest short-term letting regulations in Europe. That is not something for the Minister to shout about. It is a bad day's work in the Oireachtas, and it is why he should not be proceeding on the basis that he has outlined today.

Many short-term letting operators offer a great service that people enjoy. They offer alternatives to traditional accommodation, often enhanced, or unique options and experiences for tourists in particular that fill gaps, especially in rural communities like the one I come from. They might otherwise not sustain a more traditional commercial accommodation operation, but the unregulated nature and the proliferation of short-term lets in both urban and rural communities have in effect incentivised the conversion of family homes into commercial short-term lets, as well as impacting the private rental sector. In the midst of a housing crisis, that is not in any way sustainable and it should not have been tenable for so long.

However, for a long time, the Government has allowed these negative impacts to fester and proliferate through its failure to regulate the sector appropriately. This, of course, has contributed to the housing crisis where we now have upwards of 18,000 people homeless in this country. It has also fostered confusion and concern among short-term letting agents. I welcome the fact that the Government is finally seeking to regulate short-term lets, but it should not be at the cost of long-term homes. Unfortunately, even at this point the Minister's approach is beset with a seeming lack of transparency. There is fake urgency on the part of the Government, while it continues to beget concern and uncertainty within the sector itself.

Sinn Féin supports regulation. We believe that people should be able to utilise their principal private residence for short-term letting for up to 90 days per year when they are not present, or spare rooms throughout the year, with no planning requirements. In more rural and high-amenity tourism areas, a flexible approach is justified for family-run tourism products in buildings that are not suitable for long-term homes while restricting the flipping of family homes into short-term lets. In urban areas where there is high demand for long-term housing, communities where few homes are available for rent and homelessness is at record levels, homes should be used for the purpose for which they were granted planning permission, to be people's homes. This is a common-sense and practical approach. Sinn Féin supports the creation of a short-term letting register to ensure compliance.

What has lacked common sense until this point has been the Government's approach. There has been a failure to take action for many years, which has caused frustration and consternation among both housing bodies and short-term letting agencies conceived for the tourism industry, yet we see a fake urgency manufactured through the Government's inaction, which saw the Bill published before the enterprise committee had even concluded pre-legative scrutiny. Nor has the housing committee had an opportunity to weigh in yet regarding the planning aspects of the Bill. Now the Minister wants to proceed to Report and Final Stages next week. This is very poor legislative practice. It is an affront to the Oireachtas committee and the role the Dáil plays in scrutinising legislation. It is in effect treating these Houses as an annoying rubber stamp to the policy proposals.

The Irish people deserve a high standard of legislative practice from their Government and so do short-term letting operators. I appeal to the Minister to reflect on this and meaningfully engage with both the Opposition and committees before we go any further with it.

I echo the points made. The Social Democrats are concerned about rushing through this legislation despite years of the Government dragging its feet. It is very poor governance and it is not taking the Oireachtas seriously. Doing things like this actually undermines our democracy. After years of failing to act, suddenly the Minister is saying we have a very short period in which to offer amendments, put in changes and debate it. It is a failure to take the Opposition seriously and to take this Dáil seriously.

The biggest social issue facing this country is the housing disaster. Our housing system is dysfunctional in many ways, but nowhere is that more stark than in the use of short-term lets in our housing market. Thousands of complete homes are being let out on a permanent basis as short-stay accommodation on platforms like Airbnb when young people and increasingly older people who cannot find a home to rent or buy are either in emergency accommodation or stuck in what is really hidden homelessness. A generation of adults are stuck living in their childhood box room.

I spoke to a pensioner in Santry in my constituency last week. She is 65 years of age and she is couch surfing with different family members every other week because she cannot afford to rent somewhere.

I spoke to teachers and nurses on the pickets who are in their late 20s and are still living at home, or commuting crazy distances and then doing a day's work or a night shift. They were from Wexford, Louth, Monaghan - all places - spending hours in a car to get to Dublin because they cannot find a home to rent or buy. Young people are unable to stay in the places that they come from, especially our Gaeltacht areas, because there is not a home to find, yet there are 34,000 homes to rent out as short-term lets on Airbnb and other platforms. This is almost as many homes as the Government delivered in terms of supply last year. Almost an entire year of housing supply, thousands of homes, are being let out short term on a permanent basis. This is not about a room in your house. It is about landlords, multiple property owners and, increasingly, various property companies and property investors who have turned homes, which should be available on the long-term rental market to provide a home to a nurse or a teacher, into cash cows for property investors on Airbnb and other short-term platforms.

Across this city and country, every area is affected and has had homes removed from the rental market, which instead have been maxed out on Airbnb. The best evidence of this, where the negative impact of short-term lets and Airbnb on our housing market became so clear, was during Covid. The Minister might remember that Airbnb and short-term lets could not function during Covid. What happened? Thousands of properties suddenly became available. People were able to move from emergency accommodation into these rental properties. For the only time in a decade, homelessness was reduced significantly because Airbnb and short-term lets could not function. They could not operate. It is direct evidence that Airbnb and short-term lets are contributing to the homelessness and housing crisis. If they did not exist, thousands of homes would be available for people. The previous Government actually recognised that four years ago. Darragh O'Brien said, "We know that significant numbers of properties have been withdrawn from the long-term rental market in recent years and diverted for use as short-term lettings, negatively impacting on the supply and availability of private residential rental accommodation", and he was right.

The Government then introduced planning requirements that aimed to return 12,000 short-term lets. Those planning requirements were never enforced. Short-term lets continued. In April 2025, the Government stated that there would be a requirement for short-term lets to get planning and register in the case of towns with a population of greater than 10,000, which is also in the housing plan, but what happened? It was increased to 20,000 because of the Healy-Raes and their involvement in government. They are gone, but the Government is continuing their legacy with gusto. Imagine a family with young children who are renting a home and receive a notice to quit from a landlord, or imagine a couple in their 30s still living in their childhood bedrooms. They are desperate to find somewhere to rent and they look on Daft but there is nothing. If they look on Airbnb, however, there is property after property. I am contacted by people who say this to me. They are absolutely frustrated, broken and angry. They cannot find somewhere to rent, but Airbnb lists thousands and thousands of properties. It is enraging and depressing our young people.

The failure to act on short-term lets has a particular negative impact on our Gaeltacht communities. Tá an ghéarchéim tithíochta inár gceantair Ghaeltachta ag cur thodhchaí na Gaeilge mar theanga bheo i mbaol. Our Gaeltacht areas are facing an existential crisis as there is nowhere for young people growing up there to live, while what they see are short-term lets everywhere. I ask the Minister to go on Airbnb and then daft.ie. Today, on Airbnb for Gaoth Dobhair in Dún na nGall, you can choose 22 properties to stay in, but not one is available on daft.ie. In Corca Dhuibhne in Kerry, including Daingean Uí Chúis, 139 properties are on Airbnb and just one is on daft.ie, which is actually a two-bedroom apartment available for only eight months of the year at €1,600 per month. Mar is ghéarcheantair turasóireachta cois cósta iad cuid mhaith de na ceantair Ghaeltachta is láidre sa tír, tá drochthionchar ag Airbnb ar an nGaeltacht sa mhéid is go mbíonn sé an-deacair agus costasach ar chainteoirí Gaeilge ón nGaeiltacht nó ag obair sa Ghaeltacht áit chónaite a aimsiú. That is why we will be putting forward a number of amendments to this legislation, which are also supported by Conradh na Gaeilge, Threshold, the Simon Community, Tinteán and BÁNÚ. These amendments will look to bring these areas under the restrictions. It is unacceptable that these areas will not be subject to any restrictions or planning requirements for another two years. These organisations have highlighted these areas. This is Conradh na Gaeilge and the Simon Communities. The Government is not listening to these organisations. They are very serious. They are representing people who are either in Gaeltacht areas or in homelessness, and the Government is ignoring them. I really hope the Government will take on board their amendments.

One of the most obvious flaws of the legislation is that it is not providing for towns and cities with populations under 20,000, which will leave large parts of the country with no new controls. The Government promised four years ago, even longer ago, that it would clamp down on short-term lets, yet here we are and it is giving another two years. It has been years and years of delay, which shows that the Government is not serious about clamping down on short-term lets. What it actually wants to do is give the pretense of doing something but not actually doing it at all. It appears that this is another policy designed to fail. The question is about enforcement. How will these rules actually be enforced? The Minister mentioned fines and other aspects, but who is going to enforce them? There is no clarity around that. If a declaration is made by a short-term let owner, what does that declaration involve? We need clarity on that. Why should the declaration not be clear and show the planning permission that has actually been achieved? There is not clarity on that, and we need to see that.

One of the greatest challenges faced by both employers and communities is the current lack of housing in this State, and a key aspect of this legislation is the impact this has on enterprise and on businesses. When it comes to questions of regulation and the facilitation of tourism, we can often get siloed in our thinking and see the benefits and challenges faced only by a particular kind of business without focusing on our wider economy. In pre-budget submissions, conversations with business owners and wider society, we constantly hear that one of the biggest challenges facing businesses in Ireland, particularly in the tourism sector, is that they cannot get staff because those staff cannot find anywhere to live. In areas best known for tourism in this country, the local communities who make up the workforce of our cafés, hotels, shops and tour companies have been pushed out of their own areas.

If there is no community, there is no workforce. This is the balance that needs to be restored across our country. It means that a café with the demand to open seven days a week that only has the staff to open four days misses out on the benefits of tourism in its area. Regulation of short-term lets ensures proper balance between allowing for holiday rentals and ensuring that the number of holiday rentals is not creating a situation whereby nobody can live in areas popular with tourists. It is that simple. I welcome the fact that there are steps in this Bill to address this issue, but they must go further. I have serious concerns with the overall approach from the Government.

This issue has a particular impact, as my colleague said, on rural and Gaeltacht communities. Má labhraíonn an tAire le daoine i gCorca Dhuibhne, sa Daingean, i gConamara agus in iarthar Chorcaí déarfadh siad leis nach féidir le daoine óga fanacht sa mbaile. Ní féidir leo clann a thógáil. Ní féidir leo saol a dhéanamh dóibh féin mar ní féidir leo tithe a fháil mar gheall ar líon na Airbnb sna ceantair Ghaeltachta seo. I will return to this later, but particularly in the context of a grandfathering role, I need to highlight that this is far from a new problem. Tá an fhadhb seo ann le fada agus tá tionchar aige ar thodhchaí na teanga agus meath na Gaeltachta. Caithfear an reachtaíocht seo a athrú le cuimsiú go mbeidh ceantair Ghaeltachta faoina mbráid. It is not good enough that there would be like light-touch rules in the Gaeltachtaí and a two-year delay because they have no areas with a population over 20,000. The purpose of this Bill should be to provide them with the proper oversight and protection they need so that Irish speakers will be living and growing there into the future. That is a clear gap in this legislation that must be addressed on Committee Stage.

It is important to acknowledge that not every short-term let is appropriate to be turned into a long-term rental, but we know that many properties on Airbnb and similar platforms are normal residential homes. Currently, the system does not distinguish at all between a heritage railway cottage that could not be occupied year round, a log cabin that is fine for a weekend but inappropriate for permanent occupancy, or a three-bedroom semi-detached house in a residential estate that could and should be a much-needed home.

The only way to ensure we distinguish between these is proper regulation and planning. This kind of policymaking will deliver well beyond the acute housing challenges we face. It will also level the playing field in the tourism sector such that accommodation providers using appropriate properties and complying with the rules will be able to run their businesses. This is only possible where there is balance within communities so that the sector works for our communities and our society. We need policy to reflect that goal.

We have a long tradition of self-catering accommodation as part of our tourism sector. In particular, it has facilitated an income stream for women in rural Ireland, who had limited opportunities in decades past. However, platforms like Airbnb and the short-term lets boom have turned a sector that could have been sustainable and worked for communities into one rife with exploitation and which disadvantages businesses and ordinary people in those communities. Let us remember these same companies continued to export services to the occupied territories due to the failure of our occupied territories Bill to cover services.

Proper legislation of short-term lets is long overdue. We have required planning permission since 2019 but, due to weak enforcement and a lack of resources for planning authorities, we have had an incredible level of non-compliance. Of the tens of thousands of short-term lets in this country, only 1.3% have applied for planning since 2019. This is frustrating for ordinary people who comply with planning rules to build their homes and for other businesses that must use properties with the appropriate planning permission and pay rates on them to boot. It is also frustrating that this long-overdue action was only sparked by the impending introduction of EU rules, despite the clear effect unregulated short-term lets were having on Ireland. This leaves untouched those communities who have faced this problem for longest. It leaves off the hook the operators who have already gone seven years without complying with the planning requirements and it locks us into a situation that has proved disastrous for so many communities across this island.

Let us be honest: this Bill goes nowhere near far enough. We are in the middle of a housing emergency. The measure of this legislation must be how many homes it brings back into use for people who desperately need them. Almost 17,000 properties are being used entirely for short-term letting in areas of high housing demand like the one I represent in Dublin Central. Thousands of those could potentially be returned for long-term housing. Think about what that would mean. Families would get out of emergency accommodation where they are living in some of the worst circumstances of anyone in the country. Young people would get a chance to move out of their parents' box rooms - people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even 60s still living at home. People would finally have somewhere to build a life.

Two houses on the North Strand, which back on to where I live, have lock boxes outside them. We see them all over the city. Anyone who lives in this area will see the high number of Airbnbs littered around. These houses are vacant for six, seven or eight months of the year. Two homes that could be used by families and be part of a community are just lying vacant for most of the year.

There are huge issues with Airbnbs in the north inner city and in Dublin Central as a whole. This week I got an email from a resident of a building that contains an Airbnb. He described weekly disruptions from parties, fire alarms being triggered, security doors being broken and drug use by those staying in the apartments. It has got to the point where these incidents are affecting residents' safety, security and enjoyment of their own homes and communities. Instead of doing everything possible to bring those homes back, the Government is proposing to favour granting permission to properties that have operated as short-term lets for seven years without enforcement action. Where an operator has failed to get the permission they needed, why should the State's failure to act now count in its favour? What are we saying to the people who follow the rules? What are we saying to the families who have spent years in hotel rooms or bed and breakfast accommodation and in some of the worst living conditions anywhere in the country, if not Europe at this stage?

As a TD for Dublin South-Central, I have two conflicting issues. Dublin South-Central has massive tourist attractions. Dublin 8 is blessed to have so many attractions but there is also a massive housing issue. Every one of my clinics has people coming to me who are living in emergency accommodation or where generations of people are living in one home so they do not have to go to emergency accommodation. They are in overcrowded and unacceptable housing situations.

In September, there were 15,005 people on Dublin City Council's housing list. When we have short-term lets, as we currently do, around the city, they could be people's homes. In Dublin South-Central there is a conflict. We want the tourists to come but we also want people to have places to live in. If you are a student in Dublin 8, you will have plenty of accommodation but it will not be affordable. That is only for the international students who can come. If you are a tourist, you will have loads of hotels to stay in.

Before coming into the Chamber, I had a look at some of the short-term letting platforms. There are almost 250 places I could have stayed in for a couple of nights if I was a tourist, but they could be somebody's home. This city is becoming vacant as a place to thrive and live because people cannot afford to live here. Young people cannot afford the rents and they certainly cannot afford to buy a home. That is why we have shortages in our healthcare and education services. I have also spoken to business owners who cannot get staff. Soon we will have an empty facade. There will be nobody in the pubs except the tourists. I do not know who will work in them. We have to do something about housing in this city.

I attended the enterprise committee for the Bill's pre-legislative scrutiny last year. Since I moved into my current brief, it appears there have been delays and changes. It is hugely disappointing to see the shape the Bill has taken since I attended that committee.

Let me be clear: the unmanaged growth of short-term lets needs to be halted. A register is required, with lettings subject to planning compliance and a system of enforcement. To the extent those things are provided for in the Bill, it is to be welcomed, but the regulatory impact has been watered down significantly. Of the approximately 20,000 full homes being used for short-term letting, Fáilte Ireland estimates 10,000 could be brought back into long-term use. That would be a huge injection into the long-term rental market, providing homes for thousands of families, but there is a real risk the Bill in its current form will not achieve that.

The exemption of towns with populations under 20,000 represents a cynical approach to regulation by the Government. It completely undermines the purpose of the Bill and will neutralise its impact in some of the worst affected areas, towns like Dingle, Dalkey, Westport and Kinsale. The Bill will require significant amendment on Committee Stage. Planning exemptions are problematic. It appears the clause in section 47 exempting short-term lets in those smaller towns from planning compliance requirements for two years only mandates regularisation for lettings that already exist at the time the legislation is brought into effect. In Dublin City Hall there is a statue to Thomas Drummond with the inscription, "Property has its duties as well as its rights." We would do well to heed that warning and strengthen this legislation on Committee Stage.

I am standing here in my capacity as Cathaoirleach of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. I commend and thank Members from Government parties and from the Opposition. I recognise the contribution of Deputy Conway-Walsh. I am joined by Deputy Clendennen and others from the committee who have spoken on this matter. Unfortunately, I have to report to the House and the Minister that there is a general sense of disappointment at how the committee has been treated by the Department, while taking into account that two Departments are involved, namely, the Department of housing and the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. I believe the body of work we did was significant. As Cathaoirleach of the committee, I want to acknowledge and thank everybody who came before us to argue for their side of the debate, including those who decided to invest in Airbnb accommodation as a source of subsidiary income, whether they did it out of economic necessity or choice. Around rural Ireland, farmyards and cottages have been done up and an accidental landlord may have come into ownership of a residential property with the intention of making an income from it in retirement or of staying at home and taking it on as a second career.

There are many different lanes to this debate. I acknowledge what Opposition Members have said and take into account the fact that Ireland is a country with 18,000 people who are homeless. There is an huge difference between high-pressure areas in cities like Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick, as well as places in rural Ireland where homelessness is an issue, and communities that rely on tourist accommodation to bring economic activity into their areas, which must be separated out.

My home town is Youghal. We were victims, quite frankly, of blatant disregard in the acquisition of hotels for use as IPAS centres.

We lost over 60% of our bed capacity to an IPAS operator that took away the largest hotel in the town. This had a detrimental impact on Youghal's economic activity, which really relies on having visitors coming to the town and supporting pubs, restaurants and tourism amenities there. It is a coastal location where we have always welcomed tourists. This has had a huge impact. In parts of the country that have permanently lost hotels, where not only were they in contracts with existing owners but they were also purchased by IPAS operators, these problems still exist.

I heard references to the Healy-Raes and to Deputy Michael Healy-Rae in the House today. To be fair, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae has spoken quite positively about the impact of short-term letting in many rural communities and for families that rely on it. I agree with what is being been pushed in terms of the threshold being increased from 10,000 to 20,000. That is quite a good balance in the context of where it should sit. It will do what is necessary when it comes to having a positive impact, helping to bring more accommodation back into use as residential housing stock and allowing the use of the types of properties I have described for tourism purposes.

I am critical of the fact that the three Stages of this Bill will dealt with in one day. This is not a healthy practice and it undermines the work of the Oireachtas committees. I work with the Minister and the Opposition as collegially as I can, but, unfortunately, what I have to say here today is not positive or welcome. I hope it does not happen again. I know it will be very difficult for us to get to the bottom of the rationale for that because there are two Departments involved, but it is something that does concern me.

For families that might only have one Airbnb property or that have renovated a farmyard or farm buildings, there is a lot of concern about the 30-day limit, getting the necessary paperwork ready and the cost involved. This is something that has not been properly thought through.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this Bill in relation to short-term lets and acknowledge the work that the Government has done in relation to housing. We are not coming at this from a standing start. There has been a huge amount of work done in terms of improving our delivery of housing but also in ensuring that vacancy and dereliction are addressed through the likes of croí conaithe. Progress is definitely being made, and that has to be acknowledged.

This Bill is not just about housing; it is also about tourism. We need to protect our housing as much as we protect our tourism. I do not want to make this an issue regarding an urban-rural divide, but many of the urban TDs have spoken about housing, emergency accommodation and so on. From the perspective of rural tourism, what we are discussing is a lifeline for many people. It is their revenue and their income stream. For many farmers I know who have diversified into alternative streams of income, this has been one really positive and effective way of maintaining the viability of their land and their family units and ensuring that they can remain in and continue to make a positive contribution to rural Ireland. We have seen the likes of thatched cottages and old farm houses brought back to life. They have brought back the character of Ireland, which we try to conserve in so many ways through the work of the Heritage Council. It also involves large heritage buildings that - let us be realistic - are not suitable for long-term family living but that are an absolutely exceptional offering as short-term lets. It is important that we are working with these stakeholders to ensure that they can continue to offer the charm and uniqueness that people travel from all over the world to see and experience first hand.

The register will be critical not just in the context of its implementation but also when it comes to ensuring its ongoing upkeep and the accuracy of the information that is shared. There is a concern among individuals in the short-term letting sector regarding regulation. There are also concerns about compliance. We need to take a pragmatic approach to that. The Irish Self-Catering Federation has stated that there is grave concern that many of those in the sector will just pull out. These lets could be used to create weekend jobs for a student or a few important jobs in local communities where there is no foreign direct investment or input from multinationals.

We need to see where this will sit in terms of that national planning statement and the journey we will go on regarding planning regulation and compliance. There are concerns out there. If I look at county councils at the moment, we can see that one could be waiting three months for a pre-planning meeting. We need to ensure that local authorities are adequately resourced and are going to work favourably with stakeholders to ensure that they are compliant. I have no doubt that the vast majority of stakeholders in this sector want to comply, want to have decent offerings and want to ensure that they offer their guests a safe stay. I do not think we should be dividing this between housing and tourism. We need to ensure that there is compliance on both sides, but we also need to protect our housing and our tourism. The Minister has taken a pragmatic approach and all I would ask for is that he provides the necessary and adequate resources to ensure that the sector feels a sense of reassurance that he will work with it along with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to ensure that this can be achieved.

I welcome this debate on the Short Term Letting and Tourism Bill 2026. This Bill gives hosts something they have been asking for, namely clarity. For the first time, the State will have a national register of short-term lets. Every host will have one registration number, every platform will have to display it and Fáilte Ireland will have the powers of enforcement. In light of publication of the national planning statement yesterday, there will be one clear set of rules across the country.

Hosts play an important role in Irish tourism, particularly outside Dublin. Last year, a record 8.4 million guest nights were booked in Ireland through online platforms. Most were outside Dublin. In many rural and coastal towns, hosts keep visitors and their spending in the local economy. That is why the two-year window for hosts in towns of under 20,000 people is sensible. It gives them time to regularise their planning while they keep trading and welcoming visitors to towns and villages across the country.

We must recognise why this legislation is needed. The sector has grown significantly in recent years, often with no way to identify or contact hosts. The State cannot plan for what it cannot count or assess. In our cities and larger towns, too many full homes have left the long-term rental market. In Dún Laoghaire in my constituency, the average new tenancy costs over €2,600 a month at the start of this year. That is almost €800 above the national average. Every home that is returned to long-term renting makes a difference.

More generally, I welcome the direction of travel on housing. In the 12 months to September, more than 32,500 new homes were commenced. Last year, over 9,000 new-build social homes were delivered, which is the largest number since the foundation of the State. Supply and developing new services are the key to tackling the housing crisis. That means more homes that are built faster with the necessary water, energy, transport, childcare and education services that new communities demand and need.

I ask the Minister to ensure that every host, particularly the small host in rural Ireland, gets clear guidance from Fáilte Ireland and his or her local authority before the register opens on 1 December. Genuine hosts want to comply. We should make it easy for them and keep red tape to an appropriate minimum. This Bill brings clarity for hosts and fairness for communities and I will be supporting it.

Before I move to Deputy Ó Murchú, I ask Members to join me in offering a warm céid míle fáilte to our colleagues from the National Assembly of Hungary: Mr. Márton Hajdu, chair of the foreign affairs committee; and Mr. Csaba Bakos, president of the Hungary-Ireland Friendship Group. They are guests of Senator Mary Fitzpatrick, convener of the Hungary-Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group. They are most welcome.

I often wonder about all these conversations we have regarding housing and whether we ever actually get anywhere. There is an element involved of being like a hamster on a wheel, but there is also a need to put certain things on the record because one eventually wants to see circumstances where we actually see real and meaningful movement. When we are looking at a figure very close to 18,000 in relation to homelessness, everything has to be addressed. We are talking about significant numbers of children in this scenario. Obviously, none of this is acceptable in any way, shape or form.

We heard from the Minister, Deputy Browne, in recent times about what local authorities cannot do in relation to turnkeys. We understand the logic behind that, in the sense that no one wants a local authority going up against a first-time buyer, but the only reason some of those local authorities, like the one in my constituency, have been able to deliver on the targets set for them by the Government - as much as I think the targets should be higher - is because of that. The other issue is reducing the ability of AHBs to deliver on housing. While we would all prefer that the councils themselves would do it, there are issues in relation to capacity, but I would like to see a more holistic solution introduced.

We all agree on the necessity of a short-term letting register but, again, are we going to see any return of properties to the long-term residential market, either to rent or buy? That is for those who would be in a position where they would be able to either rent or buy.

We all know Airbnb and other platforms have facilitated the movement of what literally could be family homes, either through rental or purchase, into the short-term letting market. The fact is the short-term letting market in particular in big urban areas is taking away from a supply that is needed. We would like to be coming from a different place where we are not dealing with the issues that we are, but the fact is that we are starting from where we are starting from.

The Minister has also managed to anger housing organisations and those who advocate on behalf of those who have difficulties in getting housing, be it through rental or purchase, and also those who are representing the people who are engaged in short-term letting. We have had the arbitrary population figure of 20,000 – although "arbitrary" is probably the wrong term. That was decided for political reasons. I think that is fair to say. While we would all like to see flexibility in those areas that require short-term letting from a tourism point of view, we have to take into account the housing and homelessness issues in those areas. We have all seen short-term lettings that work, which are in the correct place. We have also seen where that is not the case and they are in large residential areas and they have impacted detrimentally on the neighbours around them.

My issue is that this is another bit operation. It is an element of confusion. I would like to think that we would have something with a bit more clarity. We do not have a holistic solution across the board to deal with housing and homelessness and we are going to continue having these conversations. I do not know when we are going to see success and deliver for people who have a housing issue.

The Deputy’s time is up. I thank him. I give a cautionary warning about using the name of commercial entities in the Chamber which are not here and no allegations have been made against them. It is just a warning.

I will take your advice on board, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Second Stage debate. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that there is a legitimate public policy objective behind this legislation. Every Member of this House is deeply conscious of the housing crisis. Every one of us knows families who cannot find accommodation, young people who have been locked out of home ownership, workers travelling enormous distances because they cannot access housing near their jobs, and, most tragically, the growing number of individuals and families forced into emergency accommodation.

No responsible politician can ignore those realities. For that reason, I understand the Government's argument that the regulation of short-term letting should not be confined solely to our largest cities. I can appreciate the rationale behind including towns with populations of 20,000 or more. Housing pressures are no longer restricted to Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. We are seeing increasing pressure in large regional towns throughout the State. However, if we are serious about tackling homelessness and increasing housing supply, then enforcement resources must be focused primarily where the crisis is at its most acute. The figures speak for themselves. Today, more than 17,000 people are living in emergency accommodation. Of those, almost 15,000 are concentrated within the major urban centres of Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford and their surrounding metropolitan areas. That is where the pressure is greatest. That is where the demand is greatest. That is where homelessness is most severe. That is where enforcement must be most vigorous.

If local authorities and regulatory bodies have finite resources - they always do - those resources should be directed first to those areas where the return is highest and where even modest increases in long-term housing supply could make a meaningful difference. I fear that this legislation risks creating a situation where scarce enforcement resources are spread too thinly across the entire country. In policymaking, there is always a danger of trying to be everything to everyone. Sometimes the result is that we end up being effective nowhere. I want a system that targets abuse. I want a system that addresses large-scale commercial operators who have effectively removed housing stock from the private rental market. I want a system that ensures compliance, but I also want proportionality. There is a world of difference between a major investor operating multiple short-term rental properties in a city experiencing severe housing shortages and a homeowner who occasionally rents part of their principal primary residence. Those distinctions matter. Good legislation recognises such distinctions. Poor legislation ignores them.

The Government itself recognises that housing pressures are not uniform across the country. If that is true, and it is, then enforcement priorities should not be uniform either. A one-size-fits-all enforcement approach risks imposing significant administrative burdens on smaller communities where short-term letting may play an important role in sustaining local tourism while yielding very little additional housing supply.

The central question must always be this: where can intervention deliver the greatest public benefit? The answer is obvious. It is in the major cities. It is in the areas where emergency accommodation numbers are highest. It is in the areas where rental shortages are most acute. It is in the areas where housing demand vastly exceeds supply. I therefore believe the Government must make it absolutely clear that enforcement policy will be targeted and prioritised according to housing need.

There is another issue with this Bill that deserves much greater scrutiny. That issue is planning. Throughout this debate we have heard the Government speak about planning compliance. We have heard Ministers say that short-term letting activity must comply with planning requirements, yet I have to ask a very simple question. Why now? Why has this suddenly become the great planning issue of our time? Short-term letting has existed in one form or another for years. Platforms have operated openly. Properties have been advertised publicly. Successive Governments were fully aware of the sector, so why are we only now being told that there is a planning crisis associated with short-term accommodation? Why was this not addressed years ago? Why was it not clarified years ago? Why did government after government fail to provide certainty? Why were homeowners, small tourism providers and local authorities left operating under a cloud of ambiguity? These are not unreasonable questions. In fact, they are questions the public have every right to ask. The Government now wants us to impose additional requirements and regulation, but where was the urgency when clarity was needed? Where was the urgency when local authorities were seeking guidance? Where was the urgency when people were trying to understand what rules applied?

One cannot help but feel that this legislation is attempting to cure symptoms rather than address causes. That brings us to the heart of the matter. Why is the spotlight being trained so heavily on self-catering accommodation and short-term lets? Why has this become such a major political focus? The answer is uncomfortable for the Government, but it needs to be stated. It is because it provides a convenient distraction from the Government's failure to build enough homes. That is the uncomfortable truth behind much of this debate. Successive Governments have presided over one of the most severe housing crises in the history of the State. Housing completions failed to match demand. Planning systems remained cumbersome. Infrastructure delivery lagged behind. Affordable housing targets were missed. Social housing waiting lists continue to grow. Private rents have spiralled. House prices escalated beyond the reach of ordinary working families. Homelessness reached record levels. Those are the facts. Against this backdrop, the Government has increasingly looked for explanations elsewhere.

Migrants working in our essential services are blamed. Planning appeals are blamed. Vacant homes are blamed. Now, short-term lets are increasingly being blamed. Of course, all of these factors can play a role but none of them explain the scale of the crisis. The primary reason Ireland has a housing emergency is painfully simple. We have not built enough homes for a very long time. That is the central failure. No amount of regulatory activity aimed at short-term letting can hide that reality. No amount of administrative enforcement can substitute for housing delivery. No amount of political spin can alter the basic arithmetic of supply and demand. The Government cannot regulate itself out of a housing shortage. It must build its way out. That is the challenge and the test and that is where the focus should remain.

Indeed, I find it extraordinary that some of the loudest voices calling for even more planning scrutiny of homeowners were remarkably silent when genuine planning abuses were occurring in years gone by. It is an awful pity that the Government, Fianna Fáil in particular, was not nearly as energised about planning enforcement during the days of the Galway tent. It is an awful pity they were not displaying the same level of enthusiasm for regulation when developers appeared to enjoy extraordinary influence over planning and development decisions. It is an awful pity they were not demanding rigorous oversight when powerful interests seemed able to secure rezoning decisions and planning outcomes that benefited them enormously. Many people remember those years. People remember an era when ordinary citizens often felt disconnected, and some still do, from the planning process. People remember a culture in which development frequently appeared to proceed with inadequate scrutiny. The irony is striking.

Today, the Government wants us to believe that the great planning challenge facing Ireland is the retired couple renting a self-catering property. Today, the Government wants us to believe that the central planning priority is the homeowner engaging in occasional short-term letting. Where was this zeal when genuine systemic planning issues demanded attention? Some still do today. Where was this relentless focus on compliance? Where was this passion for enforcement? Where was this determination to regulate? The public are entitled to ask those questions and they are entitled to receive answers. I want to be clear that this is not an argument against regulation. It is not an argument against registration, transparency or enforcement. Rules are important and compliance matters. Consumer protection matters, as does public confidence, but good regulation must and has to be proportionate and it must be evidence-based, targeted and fair. Above all, it must recognise that not every short-term letting arrangement is the same. Home sharing is not the same as commercial investment. A principal private residence is not the same as a professionally managed portfolio. An occasional host is not the same as a corporate operator. Legislation that blurs those distinctions risks doing real damage to ordinary people who are simply trying to supplement household income at a time of extraordinary financial pressure. Many homeowners are facing significant mortgage repayments. Many families are facing soaring costs. Rural tourism providers are struggling with rising operating expenses. For some, short-term letting provides an important supplementary income stream. For others, it supports local employment and local tourism. For many areas, particularly outside the major cities, self-catering accommodation forms an important part of the tourism offering. That reality should not be overlooked. Ireland's tourism product depends on diversity. Hotels play a critical role. Guesthouses play a critical role. Bed and breakfast accommodation plays a critical role. Self-catering accommodation plays a critical role, as does home sharing. A successful tourism sector requires all of these components working together. Therefore, while I support reasonable regulation, I do not support the assumption that every short-term letting property represents housing stock that would otherwise immediately enter the long-term rental market. That assumption is often overstated. It is not always supported by evidence and, in many cases, it simply does not reflect reality.

The challenge for legislators is to distinguish carefully between properties that genuinely impact housing availability and those that do not. This requires nuance and balance. It requires a willingness to move beyond simplistic narratives. As legislators, we should be capable of that. The housing crisis, of course, deserves serious solutions and the public deserve serious solutions. Headlines will not solve homelessness. Scapegoating will not solve homelessness. Only increasing housing supply on a substantial and sustained basis will solve homelessness. That simply means building more homes. It means accelerating infrastructural delivery, addressing construction capacity and providing certainty within the planning system. As we know, of course, that also means that the local authorities have the resources they absolutely need. However, it means first and foremost focusing relentlessly on housing delivery. If we fail in those tasks, no amount of regulation of short-term lets will compensate.

As this Bill progresses, I hope the Minister will carefully consider amendments that strengthen the distinction between large-scale commercial operators and genuine home-sharing arrangements. I hope the Minister will provide greater clarity regarding planning requirements. I hope he will commit to targeting enforcement where housing pressures are genuinely most severe, and I hope the Government will recognise that while short-term letting may form part of the wider housing debate, it is not the primary cause of our housing crisis.

Ultimately, the answer to Ireland's housing emergency is not to search endlessly for new villains. The answer, once again, is to build more homes. It always has been and it always will be. Until we confront that reality honestly, the housing crisis will persist regardless of how many regulations we introduce. For that reason, while I recognise the intention behind this Bill and support targeted efforts to return the housing stock to areas of greatest need, I believe it requires further refinement, greater proportionality, stronger differentiation between categories of providers and a much clearer focus on genuine housing pressures in our major urban centres. That is the approach that will best serve both housing policy and tourism policy, that is the approach that will best serve communities, and that is the approach I urge the Minister and this House to adopt.

Táim buíoch don Aire agus don Aire Stáit as a bheith anseo inniu. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill as the Labour Party housing spokesperson. I also belatedly welcome the fact that the Government is moving, albeit with great reluctance, to regulate short-term lets, which is primarily to comply with EU data sharing rules, which obligate the Government to set up standardised digital registration system for short-term rental accommodation. There has been zero to little urgency from the Government on this despite the overwhelming evidence of the damage the unregulated short-term letting system in this country is causing to the private rental market. Fáilte Ireland set the infrastructure up for the register nearly four years ago and the previous Government initially said it had intended to do this in 2023, nearly four years ago. Threshold report after Threshold report has shown how the unchecked growth of short-term lets strips homes from long-term rental supply, drives up rents and forces workers, students and families out of their communities, and these warnings were repeatedly ignored. Now, it has taken the Government nearly two years to come up with these proposals that, albeit well intentioned, and I acknowledge that, have more holes in them than the hull of Titanic.

It is nearly a decade ago that the Seanad first debated a Private Members' Bill by my colleague, former Minister of State, Kevin Humphreys, which would have ensured at the time that these lets would be classified as a commercial enterprise and would require planning permission, which would have reversed a trend that has exploded in urban areas of homes being used as hotels in the middle of a housing crisis. The restrictions that were introduced in 2019 by Eoghan Murphy could have worked if they had included any meaningful sanctions, which they did not. The issue here is with multibillion-euro hosting platforms robbing our cities and towns of housing and hollowing out communities with no structural enforcement or financial liabilities. It is not with individuals running an Airbnb or a small business. Politics is about choices and my priority and my choice here is housing and, unfortunately, what is being proposed here is not going to bring enough housing back into long-term use.

I am disappointed that the Government has continued with its proposal to exempt towns of less than 20,000. This is a disappointing retreat from the initial proposed cap of 10,000. At present, we are in a situation where rents have spiralled out of control, where there are only 12 properties available to rent on Daft within HAP limits and when homelessness has never been higher. Our priority and political choice must be long-term housing. There are anywhere up to 35,000 properties advertised for rent as short-term lets in this country.

Threshold carried out research in 2025, which showed up to 8,000 entire properties where the host operated more than one property. These are not humble B and B operators. These are landlords masquerading as hoteliers. They should be treated, from a legislative point of view, as professional accommodation providers. A serious response to this crisis must come with meaningful teeth. It must deal with the role of platforms in the first instance, and I welcome the fact the Bill will provide for a graduated enforcement framework with fixed-payment notices, summary offences and sanction regimes. I also welcome the financial sanctions that will include fines of up to 2% of annual worldwide turnover . That is welcome, because companies such as Airbnb continue to allow unregulated and, frankly, illegal properties to be advertised despite clear obligations under the 2019 legislation. That is unacceptable. Platforms need to be held accountable for what they host, and illegal short-term lets must be removed and not quietly tolerated.

This is where I am more critical and where the Bill falls short. The two-year transition period for areas with a population of 20,000 is far too long. If you have been knowingly operating a short-term let that is not compliant, then you do not deserve two years in which to rectify what you know is wrong. That is simply a joke. This allows those who may ultimately fail to obtain planning permission to continue trading in breach of planning until 2029. As for the seven-year grandfather clause, that might as well be called a great-grandfather clause because of the length of time it will continue to lock properties out of the long-term rental market.

Exempting operators who have run short-term lets for seven years contradicts the entire purpose of the Bill, which must be to return homes back into the long-term rental or purchase market during a severe housing crisis. This is where the Government is being captured by lobbyists. Let me be clear: the grandfathering or the long running of ipso facto hotels in a housing crisis will render this framework well-meaning but useless, with more holes in it than the Titanic. We also need to make sure that we protect Gaeltacht communities. Tá géarghá chomh maith le leasú chun ceantracha Gaeltachta a chosaint mar tá fadhb ollmhór ann sa Ghaeltacht maidir le lóistín gearrthréimhseach. Is bagairt ollmhór é lóistín gearrthréimhseach don Ghaeltacht. Beidh mé in ann teacht ar ais chuig an leasú sin ag Céim an Choiste.

I welcome this Bill and the Government's intent to bring clear rules and transparency to short-term letting. However, we have to call a spade a spade: a blunt urban approach will not work in rural Ireland. The housing pressures in our major cities are entirely different from the reality on the ground in rural communities, and our planning framework must recognise that.

In Galway East, from Kinvarra and Gort to Athenry, Tuam and Loughrea, tourism is an economic lifeline. When visitors stay in rural, self-catering accommodation, they sustain a village, the local pub, the cafe and independent attractions. In areas without major hotels, like those I represent in east Galway, these properties are our tourism infrastructure. The vast majority of these lets in settlements of fewer than 20,000 people are not really corporate operations. Rather, they are primarily dual-use properties such as renovated farm outbuildings, vernacular cottages or annexes within the curtilage of a family home. They are used by the family part of the year and let out the rest to supplement farm or household income. They were never going to be long-term residential rentals. It is important to recognise that. If an apartment in Dublin city is being rented out as an Airbnb and was originally built and granted planning permission as an apartment, that is how it should operate - as an apartment and not as a short-term let or as hotel accommodation. However, in rural Ireland, a lot of innovative ideas have come forward with old farm buildings being converted into really nice experiences for people to have an old Irish cultural experience.

I welcome the two-year transition window and the distinction drawn in the national planning statement for towns of fewer than 20,000 people, but if we want families to step forward and regularise their position, we must address the planning mechanics. If the proposed retention process inadvertently reclassifies a home as a purely commercial property, the unintended consequences could be severe. It could lead to the devaluation of properties, the blocking of standard residential mortgages from the pillar banks, and the triggering of disproportionate commercial rates and certifications on what is essentially a part-time activity. If that happens, people simply will not engage and rural Ireland will risk losing vital tourism bed capacity overnight. That is where my main concern would be - if we were to lose capacity.

In the spirit of constructive engagement, I put three specific questions to the Minister of State and the officials so that small operators have absolute certainty. On the planning status, will the simplified retention process grant permission as a residential property with ancillary commercial use rather than a full outright change to purely commercial use? On the finance and future sale elements, what explicit protections are being put in place with the Department of Finance and the pillar banks so that dual-use properties, particularly those within the curtilage of a primary residence, can still be bought and refinanced on standard residential mortgages without destroying their asset value? Regarding reversion, if an operator subsequently decides to stop short-term letting, will there be an equally simple automatic mechanism to revert the planning status back to standard residential without requiring an expensive, uncertain, full planning application?

My objective here remains balanced. We have to protect long-term residential housing supply where the demand is critical while protecting rural tourism where it keeps communities alive. I urge the Minister of State to take these technical clarifications on board as the Bill progresses to ensure that rural enterprise is supported but not inadvertently undermined.

The Minister of State is welcome. This Bill is a balance of competing demands and viewpoints on housing and tourism. It recognises that in our large urban areas, there are particular pressures where the housing situation is more concentrated and problematic. Therefore, the Government has decided as part of this Bill to support those individuals.

However, rural Ireland is different. In my area of Galway West, particularly in the Connemara area, the Aran Islands and Inishbofin, it is a different scenario. Things have evolved over time to a situation whereby, without any great fuss being made, people started doing short-term lettings. That has not gone through the planning process. There was a genuine concern among many people that this would be a clamp-down, so I welcome the initiative in the Bill to protect these businesses, which is what they are, because tourism is hugely important as an indigenous industry in Connemara in particular and on our offshore islands. If there was an absolute clamp-down, as some would like, it would decimate those rural communities. We are talking about small rural communities where tourism is hugely important. I am not talking about the cities or large towns, but the small rural communities.

For example, you have situations on the Aran Islands where somebody had their family home and they have since moved away but come back every so often. They come back at Christmas or for summer holidays with their family. In the intervening periods, they may rent the house out for a number of weeks. Those situations have to be protected. You have many situations whereby people may have inherited the family house. They want to keep that for their children and for the future, and in the meantime, they rent it out for short-term letting to generate a few euro for themselves. There is nothing wrong with using the assets you have. However, there is a difference in the cities and the Government has recognised that in this Bill.

I have met with Gaeltacht groups. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil deacrachtaí acu agus go bhfuil siad ag lorg athruithe sa Bhille seo. Tá sé sin ceart go leor agus beimid in ann é sin a phlé. However, the Connemara and Aran Islands Tourism Network is very much concerned with what could have happened with this. The seven-year grandfathering is certainly welcome.

The understanding that there is a difference between the urban and rural situations is also certainly welcome. This is a balanced approach. Some people have talked about delays. I suspect that the Department of housing may have a stronger view on this. The Department of tourism also recognises that tourism is a hugely important indigenous industry for rural Ireland, which needs to be protected. The impact of a blanket ending of short-term letting would have been huge and consequential in a negative fashion for those businesses. There are a number of things. There is reference to Galway city and suburbs. I assume that refers to the area of Galway city itself and those areas just outside. Even though they are rural, they would not be included in this because they are proximate to Galway city. There are some concerns about the timeline, the one month for registration. If someone has to get planning permission and that is pending, do they have to stop the listing come 1 January?

There are a number of issues that need to be clarified as the Bill progresses, including on Committee Stage. However, the general thrust of the Bill, which presents a balanced approach to urban areas and large towns and smaller rural communities and offshore islands, is hugely important. I welcome the engagement the Minister has had and the decisions made by the Cabinet that we see in this Bill.

I commend the Minister of State and the other Ministers in the Department on their work on this Bill. I come from a hospitality background and so I understand the enormous contribution that tourism makes, particularly in Mayo, from Westport and Achill down to Belmullet and Ballina, but also in communities right along the Wild Atlantic Way. However, I also acknowledge the very real housing pressures in Mayo and across the country. In my weekly constituency clinic, housing is consistently the biggest issue. Young people cannot find anywhere to rent. Families are searching for long-term accommodation. Employers are struggling to find housing for their workers. We must protect homes for people who want to live and work in our communities while also recognising that tourism accommodation supports local jobs, family businesses and people's right to earn an income from their property.

Short-term letting is not the sole cause of our housing difficulties. This balanced approach is essential. I welcome this Bill's introduction of a national registration system for short-term lettings up to 21 consecutive nights. When I book a taxi and it is on its way, I can see the registration details of that taxi. When I get in, I can see the identification card of the driver. That gives me transparency, accountability and a system by which I can identify the operator. Even when I go to the country markets and buy a cake, I know food safety standards have been complied with. In the same vein, it is reasonable to expect similar transparency in the short-term accommodation sector. I also welcome that this new system will give us reliable data to work with. It will help local authorities and policymakers to better understand the scale, location and nature of short-term letting, which will then help us to make informed decisions around housing, tourism and regional development. We can all agree that the sector has transformed across the last decade. Our regulatory framework needs to reflect that.

I welcome what is perhaps the most important thing, which is that we are moving closer to certainty for accommodation providers. Many constituents have contacted me since I was elected looking for certainty. I particularly think of a retired woman who lets out her chalet to supplement her pension. She was unsure about planning requirements, about the rules and about the future of her very small business. These are real people who need clear answers and certainty. When this legislation is enacted, we have to be really proactive about the requirements using straightforward language and not just in the online space. I welcome that Fáilte Ireland has been appointed as the body to oversee the registration system. I also welcome the confirmation we have been given that the registration fee will be €25. However, perhaps we could look at the application process. Right now, the Bill says it will be online only. I think of people like those women who are in their retirement and who may not be as tech savvy. There must be simple ways for them to do it. I also support proportionate inspections and enforcement by Fáilte Ireland alongside consistent obligations for hosts and online platforms. When accommodation is operated commercially, appropriate standards and accountability matter, especially for the tourists who are coming into the country.

I know that registration and planning permission are two separate matters. The two have been a little bit conflated over recent months. I welcome the proposed transitional arrangements under section 47. These will allow for a 24-month period for people to comply with national planning requirements. I also welcome the measures that will make it easier for established operators of seven years or more to have that proposed presumption in favour of planning permission. I also welcome the introduction of the simplified retention application process. That is a vital step. However, I ask the Minister of State to look at whether the local authority planning departments will receive additional resources to deal with the volume of applications that might arise. We cannot promise providers more certainty and then leave them waiting months for decisions.

I welcome this Bill. It offers an opportunity for greater transparency, fairer regulation and clarity. I know that Mayo needs thriving tourism and thriving communities as well as housing.

There are many people who are running legitimate short-term lets but the Government's delays and chaotic approach to tackling this legislation have left them in limbo for years upon years. If this had been done years ago, there would have been certainty by now. People would have known the position they are in. Many of these homes could have had families in them by now. I just checked today and there are 404 entire homes in Cork city on Airbnb for January. I am not talking about west Cork, east Cork and north Cork but about Cork city alone. I also checked Daft today and there are only 158 homes to rent in Cork today. The problem is clear. Those statistics speak for themselves. There are countless families in Cork who are looking for somewhere to rent. These families are being driven out of their homes by the rental legislation the Government brought in earlier this year. People have been given notice to quit but have nowhere to go. The Government has driven people out of their homes and they now have nowhere to go.

Does the Minister of State know what the crazy thing about this situation is? There are families in emergency accommodation, hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation. Children are growing up in such accommodation. At the same time, there are tourists coming to Ireland, including to Cork city, and staying in the homes these families should be in. The system is upside down. The tourists are staying in the homes and the homeless are staying in the bed and breakfast accommodation and hotels. How can that be right? That is a fact on the ground at the moment.

I was contacted by a woman today. She has been in homeless accommodation for over a year. She is a very young woman. She is seemingly trying to get her life back together. She has no family support. She does everything for herself. She is not looking for anything special or anything extra. All she wants is to be able to rent a safe home and to have a key for her own front door and to be able to lock it. She wants to build a home for herself. Is that too much to ask?

People are now living with their parents in their 20s, their 30s and even their 40s. How can it be right for adults to be living at home with their parents because they cannot find anywhere to rent? If they did find anywhere to rent, the rents are so high that they are blocked from going in. These houses should be made available to those people and the thousands of others across the State who are looking to rent or who are in emergency accommodation in bed and breakfast accommodation and hotels. We have short-term lets in places like Blarney Street, North Main Street and Dennehy's Cross. The Government has failed to tackle them. That is where families should be living. Instead, the Minister of State and her Government have tied themselves up in knots. It is not because they are worried about the small business owners or rural Ireland. It is because they are worried about the big corporate companies and agencies that are always at the heart of their decision making. They are tying up properties in Cork and in many other towns and cities. As always, the Government has done everything possible to protect those who are only in it for profit and for greed. When will this Government bring in legislation that puts people at its heart?

For too long, the State simply has not known with any degree of certainty how many homes are being used for short-term letting, where they are located or what impacts they are having on local housing markets.

That is not a sustainable basis for policymaking in the middle of a housing crisis. We have to be honest about what this means. Housing is not just another commodity. In a housing crisis, every full house advertised as an Airbnb let is a potential family home lost. When teachers cannot find accommodation near the schools where they work, when healthcare workers cannot find rental properties and when young families are forced to leave areas where they have roots because housing is unavailable, we have a social and economic problem that requires intervention. Housing must, first and foremost, serve the needs of communities. That does not mean demonising every short-term letting host, because many are letting space within their own homes, which are already occupied. However, it does mean recognising that in a housing emergency, those who make public policy have a responsibility to ensure that homes are used in a way that supports sustainable communities as well as tourism. It has become clear in many counties that things have gone too far in one direction and that the Government has been too slow to address the imbalance in that regard. If a property is being offered for short-term letting, the State should know that it exists, local authorities should know where it is located, planning authorities should be able to determine whether it is operating within the law and policymakers should be able to understand the impact that short-term letting is having on housing supply, tourism accommodation and the local community.

A clear lesson from the past decade of housing policy is that planning rules without enforcement are not enough. Ireland already has planning requirements relating to short-term letting. The difficulty has been that local authorities have had no effective way of identifying which properties are operating, where they are located or whether they have the required planning permission. The result has been a system that has really struggled to command any degree of confidence. There is a question to be asked and answered in this Bill, which is whether the register will have an impact if the Government does not create an enforcement framework around it. From our experience to date with the vacant sites register, it is fair to say right now that this is unlikely. A register that is not backed up by proper inspection, verification and enforcement risks becoming little more than a catalogue of errors. The success of this legislation will depend not simply on the collection of information but on the willingness and capacity of the State to act on that information. Fáilte Ireland must have the resources to monitor compliance, local authorities must have the resources to investigate breaches and platforms must be required to remove listings that do not comply with this law.

There is one aspect of this Bill that I have a particular issue with. As we know, the legislation provides for different treatment depending on whether a property is located inside or outside larger urban areas, with a transitional approach applying outside the 25 built-up areas with populations of more than 20,000. This Kilgarvan carve out - I have no idea why it is being called that - suggests that in certain parts of the country some people are more deserving of housing than others. The evidence suggests that some of the most acute impacts of short-term lettings are not only found in our largest towns and cities but also in rural communities, coastal areas and in parts of the Gaeltacht where housing supply is already under enormous strain. By raising the population threshold to 20,000, the Government is showing a serious lack of backbone. This leaves only 24 towns on the island able to avail of new short-term letting laws and it leaves most of the towns in Ireland completely at the mercy of Airbnb or other short-term let companies. This points to a deeper trend on the part of this Government of leaving rural communities to fend for themselves. The housing crisis is just as devastating in rural Ireland as it is in built-up areas but what the Government is saying is that some places deserve housing more than others. Counties with majority small towns and villages are suffering exponentially due to short-term rentals taking over the market. Figures have shown that there were 1,009 short-term rentals in Kerry but only 22 homes advertised to rent. The situation is equally dire in other counties. In Clare, there were 532 short-term lets available but only 19 long-term rentals, while in Donegal there were 24 short-term lets for every single long-term rental.

It is also imperative to protect our Gaeltacht areas, which are already disproportionately affected by the explosion in the number of short-term lettings. Between May 2019 and September of this year, the total number of Airbnbs in Gaeltacht areas increased by 88%, which is a completely soul-destroying number for those looking for long-term lets in their local communities. There is a distinct need for this legislation, as drafted, to be amended to protect Gaeltacht areas specifically because short-term lets act directly against regions focused on the sustainable renewal and regeneration of the Irish language.

This Bill will ultimately be measured by one clear metric. Does it help to make more homes available for people who need them? We do not need more empty administration, yet another register or another report. We need homes for families, for workers and for people who want to stay in the communities they grew up in. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis we must be equally serious about enforcement where serious problems exist. Ultimately, homes should be for living in, communities should be places where people can build their lives and public policy should put those principles first.

It is unbelievable that we are discussing short-term lets in the midst of a housing crisis that has been going on for about 13 years, if not longer. Some of the figures are stark. While short-term lets are not the cause of the housing crisis, they are certainly contributing to the problems caused by this Government and that which preceded it not building enough affordable and social homes for the past number of years. It is estimated by one consultancy that there are 28,342 short-term lets available but that there are only 12 houses available through HAP, which says it all. There are ten times as many short-term lets as full-time rentals, and 75% of these homes are often empty. They are sitting idle during a housing crisis.

Having listened to some TDs talking here, I am obliged to wonder about their priorities. How much tourism do we actually need? We need homes for everybody, including essential workers, teachers, nurses and all of the people who we cannot get to remain in the country. We are being so flaithiúlach in our legislation governing short-term lets. The majority of them are in high-demand housing areas. In Dublin, for example, there are around 2,000 short-term lets but only 1,200 long-term rentals available at the moment.

I want to make a very quick point about rural areas, because I have heard some TDs talking about that. There is a homelessness and housing crisis in rural areas. I know so many people who are affected by it. In the Gaeltacht specifically, we have been asked by Conradh na Gaeilge to take into account that there are 100 times more short-term lets than full-time rentals available and not to allow this grace period to apply in Gaeltacht areas in order to protect the Irish language, apart from anything else.

I want to talk about my constituency of Dublin West, which has always been a housing and homelessness blackspot. It is a very young constituency with a great many migrant workers. There are several hundred short-term lets available in Dublin West but practically no HAP accommodation. There are 97 short-term lets available in Dublin 15. I could not get the figures for Ashtown, but there are nearly 300 in Cabra and Glasnevin, some of which would be in Ashtown. That is nearly 100 houses that could be available to rent but are not. I spent last Saturday with a homeless couple - I am sure lots of TDs could say the same - trying to help them navigate the humiliating system that we have in this country. People present as homeless and often get a terrible reception. They are sent off to get loads of forms together. They might have to couch surf or sleep in their car while they are waiting. They go through these hoops to get onto homeless HAP but then there is no HAP accommodation available. It is nearly embarrassing explaining this system to people. What is the point in trying to jump through hoops to get HAP when there is no HAP accommodation available? One of the reasons for this is that people see the profits that can be made from short-term letting.

I do not have time to go into the detail of the Bill now.

It should worry people that the only thing that we can do to help anyone who is homeless now is HAP and there is just none available. Meanwhile, we have TDs standing up in the Dáil talking about how important it is to allow people to profit off tourism.

I want to talk about the response to the housing crisis in my last couple of minutes. One of the huge announcements that has been made is the Dunsink urban area plan. Everybody heard about it over the course of the summer. I am completely behind the idea of developing this land for affordable and social housing. Some 90% of it is in the ownership of Fingal council, and the rest is in private ownership. However, it has to be done properly, and the omens are not very good in the way this is being dealt with. To plan a new town, there should be consultation and discussions in the areas that are going to be impacted. There should be time to hear submissions and to allow feedback from councillors. I was writing a submission the day I was going on my summer holiday, that was how short a timeframe there was. There has to be, particularly in sensitive greenbelt or rural areas, protection of rural lanes and villages like Dunsinea Lane, Scribblestown Lane and the Tolka Valley. Also, the key thing is that we do not want a policy of "pack 'em in" either. The density rose in this case from 7,000 up to 18,500. Seven thousand was indicated in a motion that I put in the council two years ago when I was on it-----

With respect, Deputy, I am not sure that any of that could really go into this.

It is very relevant to short-term lets - and then suddenly the density increased. It is about our response to the housing crisis, short-term lets and the problems they are causing for finding accommodation in the country. I really feel that this plan should be mentioned in that context.

The only way to respond to the housing crisis is through the local authorities, and a State-sponsored agency should be set up to deal with this emergency, including taking information about the short-term lets in an area and whether there should be a complete ban on them in certain areas where there is such a housing and homeless crisis. In the case of plans like Dunsink, it has to be balanced. We all know there has to be transport, schools, infrastructure and things that communities need to thrive. It is all linked in. We have a housing crisis, and the Government is responding with a very light-touch regulation Bill in terms of these Airbnbs and short-term lets. This is coming from Europe. It is not even coming from the Government. It has been told that it needs to deal with this, and this is causing havoc throughout Europe. We see local people objecting in Barcelona and cities everywhere as gentrification takes over and shoots up the prices. We have seen the massive movement that is taking place in Spain in response to an 80-year-old woman being taken out of her long-term accommodation for a short-term let. That is why the problems are all interlinked.

The problems are interlinked. I agree with that and the points Deputy Coppinger raised are relevant because the connecting point between the short-term let scandal and the wider housing crisis is whether housing is built for people or profit. That is the connection. It is simple. Housing for people who need a roof over their heads should take priority over housing built to make a profit, whether it is short-term lets or another profiteering approach to property.

I was frankly shocked in the housing committee yesterday. I knew about the RTÉ site, but we got the details when we met Cairn Homes. I just thought that it is incredible that the RTÉ site, a publicly owned site, has been sold to one of the most profitable housing developers which profits from building housing on a public site and all we are getting back on what used to be a 100% public site is 10% social housing, and I was quite shocked to find out that there would be no affordable housing. I do not even know how it managed that. Somebody should look into that. I presume there has been loophole it has managed to use to get around the 10% affordable requirement, but that should be 100% social and affordable housing. Ultimately, the solution to the housing crisis is to build social and affordable housing, to do it at scale and to direct the resources of the State and the available construction labour, which is finite, to building houses for people not for profit. It is in that context that we should address the short-term letting situation.

It is good that the Government is addressing this, but to be honest, it is mostly to the credit of protestors in Barcelona and across Europe protesting against Airbnb, short-term lets and the impact they are having on the housing market and how that then influenced the European Union in order to issue directives and so on that have finally worked their way through to the Irish Government having to legislate to deal with the problem. Apart from the wider preference for profit instead of people in terms of short-term letting, the problem is summed up to me by the fact that if you go on daft.ie today there are 1,300 properties to rent for people who need a roof over their head, but according to Indecon, 32% of the 28,000 short-term lets that it found in Ireland are in Dublin. That is 9,000 in Dublin. There are 1,300 for people who are in emergency accommodation or trying to find HAP accommodation or for ordinary working people going out to try to find rental accommodation they can afford, and most of them are probably too expensive and will not take HAP, or are too expensive for HAP, but there are 9,000 short-term lets.

Imagine if the 9,000 short-term lets were available for rent at affordable prices. Imagine the impact that would have on the housing crisis in Dublin. It would be massive. It would not solve it all, but it would make a big difference. It would probably account for most of the people in emergency accommodation at the moment. Just think about that. There are kids who this Christmas will be going through their second Christmas in emergency accommodation. It is disgusting and unacceptable, but the Government is still balancing that against the right of somebody to make profit. Let us be clear about it: it is not as if they would not make a fair bit of money from just renting it out in the normal rental market. They would make a lot. Look at average rents, they are outrageous, but no, that is not good enough for them. They want to rent them at three and four times the profit. We then give exceptions in rural areas because of pressure from certain people, which is affecting the housing crisis in rural areas because people want to make more profit. I repeat that point. If people who are currently doing short-term letting were told that they could not do it in rural areas or anywhere else, they could still profit from renting it out to people who need housing in their areas, but that is not good enough for them. They want to make more profit.

They say, "What about tourism?" How many people come here each year? It is 6.5 million; more than the entire population of the country. It puts the so-called scapegoating or blaming of asylum seekers for our problems into perspective. There were 13,000 asylum applications last year; a tiny number. There are 6.5 million tourists every year. Do not get me wrong, I am not against tourism, but do we need to expand it more? Should it be a priority over people who need a roof over their head and for their families? Should we be building hotels and making profit rather than building affordable housing for people affected by the housing crisis, including the working people in this country who cannot afford anywhere to live and the young people qualifying in the health professions who are going to be out on strike next week because they are thinking of leaving the country because they do not think they will be able to afford to live here? I know what I think is the priority and what should be the priority. It should be their right to have an affordable roof over their heads and for it not to be a struggle to buy or rent a property, not just for their sakes so that they do not end up in homeless accommodation or in a stressed state trying to pay unaffordable rents, but also for the sake of the country, because if they leave, as many of them are, it is going to impact, and is impacting, on all of us.

In fact, it is one of the big reasons there are going to be strikes next week. It is not just about pay. It is about the affordability of accommodation and the availability of housing for working people in this country. It needs to be enforced. It needs to happen. There should be no exemptions. I do not know why over the shop stuff is, for example, being exempted, but there has to be serious enforcement of this stuff and there should be no exemptions in rural areas or anywhere else.

I commend the Minister and his team on bringing this legislation forward. Short-term lets are a very important part of tourism accommodation in our coastal and rural communities. Many are operated by families using cottages, farm buildings or pods in the curtilage of their family farms or homes. They support tourism jobs, family businesses, restaurants, cafés and activity providers which all depend on visitors coming to stay in these areas and experiencing all they have to offer.

However, in many coastal towns and villages in my constituency, I am aware of former council houses and family homes that are no longer part of the residential market unfortunately. We simply cannot ignore the impact of an unregulated short-term letting sector on the sustainability of these communities. It is not good enough. Ironically, it also has a knock-on impact on the ability of tourism businesses to operate due to the lack of accommodation for their staff. A house cannot be two things at once. It cannot be a profitable short-term rental and at the same time an affordable home for a young local family to stay in the community where they grew up.

In many coastal communities, the high financial returns available from short-term letting have put house prices beyond the mortgage that local wages can support unfortunately. We are not simply debating tourism accommodation. We are debating whether local people can still afford to buy a home in the community where they were born and raised. That is unbalanced, not sustainable and it is why regulation is necessary.

However, I accept there is a big difference between a second home being bought and operated as commercial tourism accommodation and a farming family letting a cottage on their farm or a family earning some additional income from a granny flat or a pod in their garden. These do not remove homes from the housing stock and are very unlikely to be put up for sale or rent, but they help families make ends meet and they contribute positively to local tourism. I believe there is a strong case for sensible carve-outs in those circumstances but we must hold a firm line on a couple of situations. Former council houses should not be eligible for change of use. Equally, where planning permission was granted on the basis of permanent occupation, those conditions should be respected. They exist to protect local communities and local housing supply, and should not be undermined.

The Bill is ultimately about getting the balance right, supporting tourism, supporting rural enterprise and supporting local communities while ensuring that local people can afford to live in the place they call home which is very important for those people. With sensible refinements, I believe this legislation can achieve that balance.

Chualamar ó fhoireann de chuid Choláiste na Tríonóide ag cruinniú chomhchoiste inné, agus ag an gcruinniú poiblí i mBaile an Fheirtéaraigh coicís ó shín, go bhfuil fadhb mhór sa Ghaeltacht mar gheall ar na Airbnbs. At that meeting we heard that there were níos mó ná 1,000, more than 1,000, Airbnb offerings in the Corca Dhuibhne west Kerry area. There are about 5,000 houses there. At the same time, people who have returned to the area having lived abroad for a number of years or are moving into the area to take up employment mostly in the tourism sector cannot find a place to rent. I have spoken to some of the tourism providers and I know that they are obliged to provide accommodation for their own staff in their accommodation but also in purchased houses in the area so that their staff have a place to go and they are offered to them at a more reasonable rent. The mean price for a house in the area is the €400,000 in a relatively out of the way place even though there is a massive tourism demand. There is no doubt that the percentage of accommodation offered on Airbnb in the area is disproportionate and not sustainable into the future.

The report stated that there was a paucity of engagement with the realities on the ground and there is no doubt about that. I am not saying this is an easy fix; it is quite a complicated area. Even within my constituency, nobody has any objection to somebody putting their grandmother's house, their relative's house or rooms in their own place on Airbnb. That is not a difficulty. However, in certain parts of the county, including Killarney and Dingle, we do not want to have ten houses in a cul-de-sac with eight of them offered on Airbnb. That is not good for the people who had a legitimate expectation that they would have neighbours as opposed to people coming in for weekends and leaving the area again with the houses possibly not being maintained or being part of the community.

There is consensus in the west Kerry area. We have Government policy, which is largely unregulated today. We would not have any problem if we had local people renting out, but that is not the case. Sykes Holiday Cottages have 25,000 cottages worldwide. They are right in the veins of the community and of the housing situation in the Kerry area. There is no doubt that a more sustainable policy is needed. We need a sustainable community for the population in Corca Dhuibhne because there is also the language vulnerability there. We heard at the meeting that since 2011 regular and daily use of the Irish language in that area has decreased from something in the 30s to 28%. There is a risk that by 2050 the language could die unless some action is taken or there is some State intervention. As one business owner in west Kerry told me, the cultural piece has to be taken into account mar tá an teanga ag fulaingt.

As I said, nobody is objecting to certain rural sustainable tourism at all but the Government is making a mess of the situation. The 20,000 rule is completely arbitrary and is not based on any objective criteria. It should be scrapped for the sake of local housing needs and local homeless services. As one of the other contributors said, former council houses should not be used for short-term letting. I agree with the amendment that has been proposed about the two-year rule. The grandfather clause also has to be reviewed. The Government needs to examine this again in order to provide better and more sustainable communities and avoid plummeting numbers in GAA clubs because of the proliferation of properties offered on Airbnb.

The Minister has made an absolute shambles of this Bill from start to bloody finish. With no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, the senior Minister, Deputy Burke, should be here for the full reading of the Bill. He has made such a hames of it along the way and he has been kicked around so much by the Minister for housing that the Bill before us now will do untold damage to tourism in the country. It is his job to protect tourism. We know he wants to tax hotel beds, which is another attack on tourism; do not ask me why. It is not good enough for him to walk out of here tonight after a little more than an hour of the debate after we begged and pleaded him to bring this Bill, which has had so many false attempts. It is like a horse in the Grand National falling at the fence. He has fallen at the fence several times and this time he has really fallen and let the people of Ireland down, mainly people in rural areas and mainly women who provide this fantastic service.

One woman sent me a message today. She said:

I thought Peter Burke had said there would be a caveat put in if the Airbnb was located in our principal private residence instead of us being bundled in together. We are not taking from the housing market. We will never long-term let. They are effectively closing us down over a two-year period with their commercial planning requirements and many of us only doing business six months. It is simply not viable to open for the winter period with shared MPRNs and energy, kerosene and electricity costs.

I could go on. There are messages after messages because I have been very strong on this and I will tell the Minister why. I seldom talk about my parents here. My mother did Airbnb in the 1970s and I saw what I did. It reared us. A woman working at home on a farm did Airbnb on the side and that is exactly the same model used by many of the people with whom I held public meetings in west Cork over the past year and a half. They have brought that up with me. It was a little side income to educate the children.

I am very disappointed in the people from Dublin who have spoken here. They are living in a bubble. They do not understand how rural Ireland works. I am lucky. I live in rural Ireland. I live in a beautiful place west of Schull on the way to Goleen surrounded by people in Durrus and Ballydehob and so many more all the way out east to Courtmacsherry. I could go on - Kilbrittain, Timoleague and all those areas that are trying to do a little bit of business. That is all they ask for here but this is the very thing the Government is trying to do regarding bringing in planning regulations to those rural people.

I listened to different TDs here today. Regarding the Social Democrats - good God almighty - its leader is from west Cork, which besides Kerry is the capital of tourism of this country, but she and her party have done nothing but wipe out tourism. I listened to Deputy Gibney, who said we have to mind the people who are working in cafés because they need places to stay. Just a few months ago, her party did everything in its power to block the VAT rate cut, of which I did approve, to save cafés and restaurants. The Social Democrats tried to do them out so it was trying to get rid of the workers in the first place. That will tell us what a dream bubble it is living in. Deputy Hearne spoke about a constituent in Santry. Yes, it was a terrible story involving a person aged 80 who had no home. That is a shocking story and I fully understand that but does he think that the people of Durrus must provide that person with a house? That is not going to work. This Bill is unworkable.

Government TDs are coming in tonight trying to put out a very nice speech that might go up in social media this evening. Deputy Kyne was elected. Is he going back to Connemara because I will call a vote against this Bill tonight? Is he going to go back to the constituents of his I met when I was canvassing there who told me this cannot go ahead and that it will lead to the ruination of a small business that actually has people going down for a little bit of food calling to the restaurant, café or pub? This is all about tourism. Is he going to go back to them and say "I'm going to vote against you tonight" because that is exactly what he will do? They will speak out of one side of their mouth and come in here and do the other thing and that is not good enough.

I listened to Deputy Coppinger, although I suppose I should not have listened because I never heard such silliness in all my life. She asked how much tourism is needed in the country. In the name of God almighty, what is wrong with a person who could say that in a country where tourism is the largest indigenous industry and biggest regional employer? It is easy to know that they want everybody on the dole and everybody to get a free house but that is not how the real world works. The people I represent are the workers, in particular women, who wanted that little side income but were proud to offer a fantastic service - a dream service - that the Government is now going to ruin.

Regarding Sinn Féin, Deputy Conway-Walsh spoke very much from the heart, as do I, and I would agree with her but Deputy Ó Broin then came along and spiked that by saying he does not want the two-year compliance rule. We do not want it at all but he wants to bring in the rules tomorrow morning. That will lead to the ruination of short-term lets in rural Ireland and that is the point.

I have to correct the Deputy.

I am talking now. The Deputy will get her time to talk. There is more people who spoke here tonight. The only one who spoke here today-----

The Deputy is taking advantage of-----

The only one that spoke here today who understood exactly what this is going to do is Deputy Lawlor. He said we should concentrate on areas with the largest incidence of homelessness. That is where this Bill should have been pointed at and not at the small rural communities that deliver for people and continue to deliver a little bit of tourism and financial aid at a difficult time. It might be a little side building on a farm or whatever. That is what needs to be done on this Bill and changes need to be made.

The Minister said that he proposes to engage constructively. Independent Ireland have 11 amendments tabled for Committee Stage next week. Is he going to accept any of those or will he reject them all one by one? Is that working constructively with the people out there? I am not putting them down for myself because I do not do Airbnb. I am putting them down on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the people who have delivered the fantastic service down through the years.

I think the Government misread the whole situation. It is understandable that guidelines could be needed for cities and bigger towns but not the small rural communities. Deputy O'Connor is the Cathaoirleach of the committee that will be dealing with this next week and I sincerely hope he will. He said there are different lanes and he is right. There are different lanes in relation to this. Take the example of the Beara Peninsula where I live. There is no hotel there. Now the Government is going to do away with the chance that people had to stay in a community like that if it is going to continue with the role it is playing. Deputy Devlin spoke about how Fáilte Ireland will have enforcement powers. He is happy with the two-year period. He spoke about Dún Laoghaire. I am certainly not happy because I speak on behalf of the rural people of west Cork. Deputy Dolan said that what is needed in urban Ireland will not work in rural Ireland. Tonight, he will get a chance to vote to make sure that he does support us and I hope he does not change his mind. The whole point I am making here is that this is poorly thought through. It is an absolute shambles from start to finish. The Minister was caught left, right and centre on numerous occasions. It looks to me like Deputy O'Connor has no understanding of rural tourism in Ireland and tonight, he is going to bury it and the recovery after this is going to cost millions.

To say I am disappointed in this Bill is an understatement from a person who has grown up in rural Ireland and who appreciates what urban and rural can actually do together. The law the Government is trying to bring in here will actually desecrate rural Ireland again. The last Bill the Government tried to put through regarding energy costs reduced the carbon tax on kerosene and gas but it only reduced it on gas piped to buildings. In other words, most of rural Ireland will not qualify for that. The Government forgot to mention gas provided by the likes of Flogas and Calor Gas that is in drums so it excluded this gas, which is used in rural areas. That is what it has excluded.

The Government has done the same thing with Airbnbs. Go around Limerick city and county and try to get a hotel to stay at. We have the Ryder Cup coming to the area. What is going happen there? What will happen to the millions upon millions of euro that this is going to provide to people in Limerick, Kerry, Clare and Tipperary and all the surrounding areas? What is it going to generate for the people around here? People who come here for a short stay use Airbnbs. Number one, they might not be able to afford a hotel. They might be coming on a budget holiday so they go to the Airbnbs where they can travel around different places. They support all the communities - all the shops and publicans. How many people are going to pull out of it now?

Then we look at the planning conditions for people who have had Airbnbs for over seven years. The Government says they can look for retention. This means that they come under the current building regulations, which means it costs thousands. Where once a person could get planning permission and an engineer to do a planning application for him or her for €3,000, the cost for a house is now €7,000 or €8,000 so it is going to be a cost on something that is already broken. We cannot get engineers to do applications. What is going to happen now? Costs are going to go up.

What happened when everybody came from Ukraine and we were trying to house them? Every hotel in Ireland was full. The Government took more hotels out of the market, which left fewer hotels. What happened? Prices rose. We are fighting to try to get that business back after we were able to get them into different towns, villages and cities. At one stroke of a pen, it affected the one thing that was supporting places in rural Ireland - getting people up into the Galtee Mountains and other places along with the greenways we were talking about.

People want to travel around Ireland. What supports that? Airbnbs. What has the Government done? "Yerra, that does not matter. We will destroy them." One ruling does all. That is what has been wrong with this Government from the very start. This is what it has done. It has destroyed this country and now it is destroying rural Ireland.

I do not think a speaker from Aontú is coming, but if one does, he can have my slot.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of this Bill. I have been involved in it on Committee Stage for the past year and a half, watched all the discussions on it take place and listened to the presentations from various property owners, especially those from rural Ireland and families who had rented out a house next to a new house they had built or who had a couple of properties that will never be rented out commercially.

There is a little bit of a dichotomy in this debate. On the one hand, this is being used to tackle the real availability of houses that could be brought out in urban areas. For example, I think it was Inside Airbnb that tracked that, of the 6,637 listings in Dublin, 61% were considered to be entire homes and apartments, which is about 4,050 full properties removed from the housing market. Now, you have to add a caveat there because, obviously, if the property is your principal primary residence, you can still rent out an entire home for a period, and some of them might be rented out in that way. Basically, though, as regards the multi-listing hosts in Dublin, over 50% of Dublin's short-term rental supply was controlled by hosts who managed multiple properties. Therefore, in areas like Dublin, and probably Cork and Galway, although I do not know as much about them, there are properties that could be brought straight away into the rental market to help with our housing crisis, and we have a massive housing crisis, as we know.

As I said during committee debates, however, this tries to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer. While it tries to free up properties in the traditional rent pressure zones, it also puts undue pressure on the people whose livelihoods and partial incomes have been created over generations in many cases by this. Now, there are a couple of outlier towns like Killarney, a big tourist town that is over the population threshold, that need some form of support to allow for people who have had properties for some time, and we hope that there are some loopholes in that regard, but as regards the overall legislation, I will table a number of amendments. I have actually submitted some already. The overall onus on the smaller operator is way too high. The European legislation basically said we needed to register short-term lets; it did not put any other serious obligation on us. Fáilte Ireland could have just set up a system whereby someone could say that they had a property and it was rented out as a short-term let for up to 14 or 21 days, or no more than 90 or 120 days in a year, it ticked the box and it met certain health and safety standards. Instead, however, we first changed the planning laws, which, on paper at least, require operators to double-check with the local authority and put a lot of pressure on the local authorities to say that the properties met planning regulations.

I will give the example of a multigenerational holiday home, whereby there are relatives who own a holiday home. They may have had connections with the area originally, so they buy the holiday home in the area and it is used over a considerable number of nights throughout a year, but there are periods when it is not used because all of these families have relatives, work, careers, etc. The house is left idle for possibly six weeks to two months in the winter at different times. If that house is not occupied and heated, it will fall into a state of disrepair, so many families who have a holiday home would rent out the home for a week or three nights or two nights over a weekend. It might cover the cost of the house insurance, which is a bonus, but it will cover the cost of keeping the house going in order that when the family are able to go back in on bank holiday weekends, Easter, October or the new year, the house is in good nick.

Those people are not professional landlords. They do not want to be professional landlords. They will never operate a property on that basis. Similarly, and I have met so many of them during the discussions, there are family members who built a new house on their family land and the old house is still there. They did up the old house a little and they have relatives coming over at Christmas or they may have a few coming over at summer. They will never rent out that property to a tenant and get into a legal agreement with a tenant, so what do they do? They rent out the property because they are living close by. They make a few quid out of it. They are fully tax compliant, they record all the income and they meet all the requirements. In recent years, going back to 2018, they have been required to make sure that, without having changed anything of the property, it has to have a change of use, That is onerous in itself, but the registration fees that have been proposed also add too much to the pressure on people in rural communities. Some of them are involved in farming, some have part-time jobs, some have full-time jobs and commutes. They have this as an extra income stream and it is making use of a property, bringing tourists into the area and generating some form of income for people in an area, and they are being penalised. We can talk about whether or not we have a derogation for two years to allow people to get everything in order. My personal view is that this is about the small people, not the commercial landlords who are basically cheating the system by renting out urban properties as Airbnbs and who own five or six of them. This was not the case before the regulations were ever looked at. I am talking about going back to the nineties or the eighties. There were families who operated properties like that way back, and there should be some form of derogation for them, but not for people who started doing this in recent years in the likes of Dublin, for example, because they saw it as a way to make a massive killing without having any of the legal obligations of being a landlord or being registered with the Residential Tenancies Board.

I 100% agree that we need to bring those properties back onto the market, but we also have to realise, for rural Ireland in particular, that there are properties that will never be brought onto the market. If anything, those properties will still be used but they will cost the families more to operate them. They will not be used as often or, if the families do end up having to fork out, it will come at a financial burden to them at a time when we are so uncertain in terms of tourist numbers coming into Ireland. We need to amend the legislation as proposed, not to harm the little people, in order that we can use the legislation to deal with those who are cheating the system.

I compliment Deputy Gogarty on his contribution. It covered a lot of points I fully agree with, although I will cover some different points. His phrase that this is very much a sledgehammer to crack a nut was in my head as well. It is a one-size-fits-all approach and it does not work.

Short-term lets provide the only form of tourist accommodation in many parts of rural Ireland. They bring tourists from all over the world to places that would otherwise never receive tourists. I know because I live in a village in rural west Wicklow and I have witnessed what these short-term lets bring. These industries were here before the housing shortage and they will be here long after the housing shortage is gone. They supply accommodation where hotels will never be built. They offer a unique and authentic experience to the tourist and show Ireland at its best. We cannot destroy an industry on the basis that doing so may increase the housing supply by some small amount.

I know a poll was carried out across a number of host groups across the country and determined that, on average, 93.5% of hosts cannot or will not release their properties for long-term letting. The legislation will, therefore, have little or no impact.

According to Fáilte Ireland's data, self-catering accommodation is the second-largest provider of tourism beds in Ireland. Hotels provide 161,000 beds, while holiday lets provide 139,000 beds. This is at a time when hotel rates in many areas of Ireland are exorbitant.

Hosts have no issue with a register. The whole area of planning permission, however, must be streamlined and explained. When will hosts need to demonstrate that they have planning permission? That question needs to be answered. These people provide a wonderful service. We must not bog them down with red tape and detailed planning applications. Additionally, the window for registration is only one month, namely, December. Can we come up with a list of questions and answers so that hosts know what is required? They are very much in the dark. Can the Department meet the Irish Self-Catering Federation, ISCF? The impact of releasing this rental accommodation into the long-term market will be negligible.

The impact on tourism, people's incomes and rural Ireland is clear. This Government proudly supports rural Ireland, small businesses, tourism and Ireland's unique hospitality offering. Short-term lets are all these things rolled into one. I ask that the Government please support them.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Short-Term Letting and Tourism Bill 2026. I recognise the importance of having a proper regulatory framework for short-term letting in this country. We need accurate data, greater transparency and appropriate oversight of the sector. I also recognise the very real housing challenges facing communities throughout Ireland.

However, I want to make one thing very clear. In addressing our housing difficulties, we must be careful not to create another problem for rural communities, such as those in Kerry, and small tourism operators and families that depend on this sector to make ends meet. This is particularly important in my county, where tourism is not simply an industry but the backbone of the local economy in many towns and villages. It supports thousands of jobs, sustains local businesses and provides an important source of income for families throughout the county.

Short-term letting is an essential part of that tourism offering. Kerry has a very different tourism landscape from Dublin and some of the larger urban centres. We have rural villages, coastal communities, farms and isolated areas where traditional accommodation options are limited. For many families, providing a small amount of self-catering accommodation is not a major commercial operation. It might be a converted garage, a small annexe, a room or an additional unit on the family farm. For some, that accommodation generates €2,000 to €3,000 over the summer months. That might seem like a relatively insignificant amount to some people, but for an older person or rural household in Kerry, that money can pay for heating, car insurance, motor tax or essential repairs.

I have received representations from constituents from Tarbert to Kenmare, Sneem to Tralee, Killarney to Dingle, Killorglin to Rathmore and Cahersiveen to Castleisland, and from north, south, east, west and mid-Kerry. People in every corner of our county are genuinely worried about these proposals and what they will mean for them. One constituent, for example, described the proposed arrangements as overly complicated and punitive. The constituent spoke about the additional pressure being placed on ordinary people who are already navigating NCT requirements, insurance, licences, planning applications and numerous other regulatory obligations. I do not believe we should dismiss these frustrations. We must ask whether we are creating a system proportionate to the scale and nature of the operation being regulated. A small family-run tourism unit in rural Kerry is not necessarily the same as a large commercial property portfolio operating in central Dublin. Our legislation and planning approach must recognise that distinction.

I welcome the proposed national register to be administered by Fáilte Ireland. Having accurate information about the number, location and nature of short-term rental properties is sensible. Registration, however, must not become an unnecessarily complicated process. There must be clear guidance, accessible assistance and a straightforward route for ordinary householders to comply.

I ask the Minister of State to clarify several matters. What exactly will be required of a small operator registering a converted garage, an independent annexe or a unit on a family farm? Will there be clear guidance distinguishing these properties from conventional residential houses being used exclusively for commercial short-term letting? What will the registration fee be? The legislation refers to a nominal fee to be prescribed by Fáilte Ireland. What will "nominal" mean in practice, particularly for somebody operating a small unit? What support will be available to people who do not have planning expertise or access to professional advisers? We cannot expect an elderly person or small rural operator to navigate a complicated planning process without meaningful assistance.

I also want to address the national planning statement and the population threshold of 20,000. I acknowledge the Government's decision to adopt a more accommodating approach in towns and settlements with populations below 20,000, including a two-year period for operators to regularise their planning position. That is very welcome, but I question whether a population threshold alone is sufficient to determine the appropriate planning approach.

We must look at the circumstances of individual communities, and consider whether there is a genuine shortage of long-term housing, whether a property could realistically serve as a long-term home and whether restricting its use would make any meaningful contribution to addressing the housing shortage. A converted outbuilding in rural Kerry, for example, located several kilometres from the nearest employment centre, is not necessarily a realistic alternative for a family seeking a long-term rental property. We need to be careful that we do not remove valuable tourism accommodation without creating a single additional home for somebody to live in.

On a point of order, I ask that the clock be stopped for one second. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, but why, when we are debating something so important, do we not have the Minister for housing or a Minister of State from the Department here? I think this debate should be halted and we should have the Minister for housing or a Minister of State from that Department here. I say this with all due respect to the Minister of State. She knows this. It is not her fault.

The Deputy is on the record on the issue, and we will deal with it.

It is crazy.

Yes, but we are not-----

Representatives of associations around the country are watching this debate.

We will not get this sorted here.

It looks like we are getting nothing sorted.

I do not mean to interrupt, and the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach knows this, but I think the position is entirely wrong.

Fadhb ar bith. All right. I call Deputy Ó Muirí.

Deputy Healy-Rae is correct. This is hugely important, and not just to Kerry but throughout the country.

I am not taking away from that and it should be noted. In fairness, it has been said by several people. At this point, we are hearing from an Teachta Ó Muirí.

I think the concerns are well made. Housing remains the single biggest challenge in this country. While lots of progress has been made, we all know that much more work remains to be done. Although 162,000 new homes have been delivered in the past five years and we are on course to see good completion figures this year, we have to do more. Increasing the delivery of new homes must remain the central focus of our housing policy. Equally, we need to ensure that vacant land and underutilised properties are returned to long-term use, which is why this legislation is necessary. Every property that can be returned to long-term residential use has the potential to help a person or family struggling to find accommodation. The measures in the Bill will help to ensure that. In areas like mine on the northside, with significant housing pressure across the board, the balance must be tilted towards residential and local housing need. Ultimately, boosting housing supply in all its forms is essential if we are to ease pressure on renters and support home ownership.

I accept the concerns regarding tourism, and it is important that we recognise the valuable role tourism plays in communities throughout the country. The situation does vary across the country. I welcome the approval yesterday of the national planning statement on short-term letting, as mentioned by my colleague. It will provide a clearer framework for local authorities when determining planning applications for short-term letting. It is good that it will be clear for them. This clarity is vital for those already in the business and for the local authorities.

One aspect of this Bill that deserves greater attention is the strengthening of Fáilte Ireland's short-term rental data. I have raised this issue previously. The quality of our tourism data can sometimes be poor, but it is very important that it is of a high quality. The enhanced data collection provided for in this legislation will improve oversight of that sector and help the Government and policymakers to make better informed decisions about tourism development and where investment goes in the year ahead.

Enforcement of these new rules will be absolutely vital. I assume it will be local authorities that will be doing the enforcing because they will have the local know-how and the planning responsibility in terms of planning permissions. However, it is important that they are well resourced to do it and that they start enforcing straight away, so that those who are operating in the sector understand that this is happening and that they need to comply.

In Dublin Bay North, as I mentioned, where housing demand far outweighs the demand for tourism, it is only right that housing needs are rebalanced in this way. This legislation will help with that balance and support Ireland's thriving tourism sector while also ensuring more homes are available for the people and the families who need them most.

Tá dlúthcheangal idir an gceist idir lámha againn anocht - rialachán na hearnála cíosa gearrthéarmach - agus todhchaí na Gaeilge mar theanga phobail. Tá géarchéim tithíochta againn sa Ghaeltacht. Ní féidir le muintir na Gaeltachta cur fúthu ina gceantair dhúchais féin de bharr an easpa soláthair dóthanach tithíochta inacmhainne le díol agus le fáil ar cíos. I staidéar a rinneadh i gColáiste na Tríonóide le déanaí, fuair siad amach nach bhfuil 40% de stoc tithíochta i nGaeltacht Chiarraí thiar á úsáid mar áit cónaithe fadtéarmach. Ní raibh fiú áit amháin le fáil ar cíos sa cheantar agus ós cionn 1,000 áit liostáilte ar Airbnb sa cheantar céanna.

Tá tionchar tubaisteach ag an earnáil seo ar chumas an phobail a theanga a sheachadadh ó ghlúin go glúin. Tá an scéal mórán mar an gcéanna sna Gaeltachtaí eile thar timpeall na tíre. Mar sin tá sé riachtanach go ndéantar rialáil ar an earnáil ligin gearrthéarma agus go mbeadh cosaint agus stádas ar leith tugtha don Ghaeilge laistigh de sin. Fáiltím roimh an Bhille seo ach tá roinnt cosaintí breise gur mhaith liom a fheiceáil chun todhchaí na teanga a chinntiú.

Mar gheall ar leochaileacht na Gaeltachtaí agus an luach cultúrtha ar leith a bhaineann leo, creidim gur cheart go mbeadh limistéir pleanála teanga Gaeltachta san áireamh d'athrú úsáide ar cead pleanála ón 1 Nollaig 2026. Is é sin le rá nach mbeidh an tréimhse bhreise dhá bhliain i gceist sa cheantar Gaeltachta don athrú úsáide mar a bheidh sna háiteanna faoi bhun daonra 20,000. Tabharfaidh an tréimhse dhá bhliain deis dóibh siúd atá ag ligean áiteanna go gearrthéarmach leanúint ar aghaidh mar is gnách. Téann sé i gcoinne cuspóirí na reachtaíochta agus ar an mbonn sin ní féidir glacadh leis.

Aontaím le go leor rudaí atá ráite sa díospóireacht seo. Bhí mé ag éisteacht san oifig agus mé ag scríobh an rud seo. While I have the Minister of State with responsibility for AI here, I want to raise something regarding the Bill but also regarding the housing market. I have put in parliamentary questions on this before. We need to do something in this Government regarding the advertising of AI-generated houses. It is something I have engaged with her Department on and I welcome the responses I am getting. It is not acceptable for absolute lies to be told regarding derelict and vacant properties, but that is what happens when an AI-generated image is the first thing people see when bidding on a house. That is something we need to tackle now as the market is growing. I will continue to engage and will follow up with the Minister of State's office on two absolutely outrageous cases that have been highlighted to me by Ciarán from the "Crazy House Prices" Instagram page.

As my colleague has mentioned, we have a huge demand for housing in Dublin Bay North. It is not acceptable for short-term lettings to be pushing my generation, the generation before me and the generation to come out of renting and out of actual consistent accommodation. Another thing we are constantly discussing is very topical at the moment with the public sector strikes having gone on and coming again. We need to look at the rent relief tax scheme across the country as it is not acceptable for a garda, a nurse, a teacher or an SNA to get the same relief on their rent living in Dublin when they are paying nearly four times the price of rent while they are getting paid the exact same. That is also something at which we should be looking.

As my colleague said, there is a difference between someone earning a little extra income and an entire residential property being permanently removed from the long-term housing market. Homes should come first. I welcome that the Bill introduces a national registration system through Fáilte Ireland. This will give us better information about properties being used in short-term letting and I welcome that. However, I also make the very important point that the success of this legislation will be measured not by how many properties we register but by how many homes are brought back into the long-term housing market for my constituents and for the constituents of everyone in this House.

I reiterate my point on transparency in the property market as we are seeing property advertisers using AI-generated images. There is a big difference between showing someone what a house could look like after renovation and showing them an image that makes it look better than it actually is. I will follow up with the Minister of State's office on that.

I ask for the Minister of State's support on the seller's legal pack legislation that I reintroduced to the House. I believe we can make the entire process of buying a lot faster, simpler and more transparent. At the moment there is too much documentation to be assembled. I am currently in the process of buying my own house and I see the amount of work that I have to go through. My older siblings have purchased their house too. We have to jump through hoops while other countries make it a lot simpler and streamline the process. The IPAV and other organisations have shown that we can streamline this process and make people sell, buy and get into houses quicker.

I support the principle behind this Bill. Greater transparency, accurate data and proper registration of short-term lettings are legitimate objectives. However, legislation should be judged not only by its intentions but also by its likely effects and impact. I am concerned this Bill may create difficulties for rural tourism economies without clear evidence that it will deliver the housing benefits it claims. The Government appears to recognise that rural Ireland faces different circumstances. The Bill amends the Planning and Development Act 2024 by inserting a new section 83A, which suspends for two years the requirement for planning permission for a material change of use to short-term letting in settlements with populations below 2,000. If the same policy cannot be applied equally across the State, it is reasonable to ask whether the full impact on rural communities has been properly assessed.

Section 11 of the Bill inserts new sections 27A to 27D into the Tourist Traffic Act 1939. These provisions establish a mandatory registration regime; place responsibility on Fáilte Ireland as the competent authority; require hosts to provide specific information; provide for registration and renewal of fees; and create offences for non-compliance. Section 13 then provides that registrations will last for just 12 months before renewal is required.

Taken individually, none of these measures appears excessive but the question is what happens when they operate together. For large commercial operators, registration, annual renewals and compliance obligations may simply become another business cost. The Irish Self-Catering Federation told the Oireachtas committee that the legislation in its current form is absolutely unworkable and it risks closing down elements of rural tourism. This concerns me greatly. The federation also warned that many properties which have provided visitor accommodation for years may leave the sector altogether. The Irish Tourism Industry Confederation has similarly warned that many rural areas do not have enough hotel capacity to replace the lost short-term letting accommodation. If bed capacity disappears, the wider tourism economy loses with it.

This is particularly relevant in my own county of Offaly and across the midlands. Our tourism offering entirely depends on a dispersed network of farm stays, self-catering properties, guest houses and independent providers serving visitors to Birr, Lough Boora and the Shannon region, our greenways and our heritage attractions. What concerns me most of all is the absence of clear evidence. As far as I can see, the Government has not produced a county-by-county assessment showing how many tourism beds in the midlands may be affected. Indeed, the Irish Self-Catering Federation states that 90% of operators surveyed would not convert their properties to long-term rentals if tourism use ceased. If that is correct, the State could lose valuable accommodation capacity while gaining very little in additional housing.

Before this House imposes a regime of annual registration, renewals, compliance obligations and enforcement powers, the Government should show that it understands the likely consequences for rural tourism and, indeed, the impact on counties like Offaly. Good legislation requires strong, robust evidence. I am not convinced that such evidence has been provided, because no assessment has been done.

This Bill had the potential to be sensible and practical. I was involved with it in the very early stages. What I can see is that the Bill has been that I would call "scutterised". It will create uncertainty for hardworking people who have spent years building businesses and bringing visitors to rural Ireland. We are talking about the woman who runs a self-catering cottage, the family who restored an old farmhouse and the people who clean, maintain and manage these properties. These are the people who make rural Ireland tick. They deserve better than this.

I support the creation of a register, but the Government has turned a reasonable idea into a planning headache for established businesses to the extent that I have tabled 15 amendments to the Bill. I should not have to do that, but I am doing it in the interests of the people who are listening to this debate and who will be absolutely shocked by what they are hearing.

Let us deal with the issue of the seven years. On 28 April the Taoiseach told this House:

Planning law is planning law and the seven-year rule is there. Basically if someone is operating an Airbnb for seven years he or she does not need planning permission.

Those are his words, not mine. He qualified this as being his understanding and spoke about enforcement, but people listening heard a clear and absolute assurance. Those long-standing operators who do not already have the necessary permission or exemption are now being told they must regularise their planning position. Why are we doing this? Where is the protection those people understood they were being promised? We were told that there is a simplified process. Call it simplified, streamlined or fast-tracked, it still involves a planning application. It is still a decision about whether someone can continue with their business or not. A seven-year rule does not guarantee approval. The Government’s guidance still refers to traffic hazards, flooding, pollution and occupancy conditions. Will established entrances now be questioned? Will area engineers be assessing sight-lines at properties that have been welcoming visitors for years? How will objections be dealt with and what will happen if permission is refused? People deserve straight answers before their livelihoods are subjected to this process.

Let us take Kerry as an example. There may be around 4,000 short-term lets in Kerry at the moment. If a quarter of the owners of those properties need to apply for planning permission, that is 1,000 applications. How are our local authority and its excellent planners going to deal with that in the timeframe allowed, even though it is two years? If someone operating for less than seven years does not get the same presumption in their favour, a simpler form does not remove the uncertainty about the outcome.

The registration timetable is another problem. Who in the name of God thought it was the right thing to do to tell us that this has to be done during the month of December, when possibly two weeks are gone? Why put people under that pressure? Give them three months practical assistance and a clear way for an authorised agent to help them. The appeals arrangements are also unbalanced. An operator has 21 days to appeal. That person can be asked for further information within 14 days, yet there is no overall statutory deadline for deciding that appeal. You cannot demand urgency from business owners and then leave them waiting indefinitely for an answer. Annual renewals must also be workable. Let people apply earlier and protect their registration while timely renewals are being processed.

This Bill as it stands is an absolute disaster. I will say again it has been "scutterised". It is bringing uncertainty to these businesspeople. We will be tabling amendments in order to seek to protect established operators, give people reasonable time, provide for fair appeals and prevent administrative delays from putting businesses in jeopardy. We need homes, but we also need employment and visitors spending money in our towns and villages. Closing a holiday business does not automatically produce an available long-term home. As I have continually stated, the people who provide short-term rentals did not create the housing crisis. Nor are they responsible for fixing that problem. We must consider the amendments and deal with them in a practical way. These families have invested their own money and years of their lives. They deserve a fair chance.

We all recognise that there are issues in some cities. However, it appears that the Government is hell-bent on introducing a one-size-fits-all approach. It has made an absolute hames of this. I do not know if the Minister of State understands the word that Deputy Michael Healy-Rae used, but she will know what a hames is. It is something that used to go on a horse.

In many rural communities, self-catering accommodation, holiday homes, farm stays, glamping facilities and other short-term rental accommodation are not part of housing and never will be. I do not know what the Government thought it was doing when it brought this Bill forward. Nor do I know where it got it from. One size does not fit all. We know that. We thought we had this sorted 12 months ago. I compliment Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. When he was a junior Minister, he made a lot of headway on this. Now, however, the Government is back to the drawing board. Who is wagging the tail of the Government? The left, with the exception of the Labour Party, has never been in power here, but the left is getting away with things in respect of many issues. I refer to social and other issues, and here again. I listened to those on the left the other night. You would think they were living in a utopia. In rural Ireland, we have very little.

I want to salute the men and women - especially the women in many cases, as has been said here – who operate these Airbnbs, rentals and small houses. There is a great man in my parish, Tomás O'Keeffe. He converted a lovely little thatched house that I often ate my dinner in when his mother and father were alive. It was becoming derelict. It was located in the middle of the farm. This was a lovely thatched cottage in which a big family was reared. They are all gone off now and doing well for themselves, buíochas le Dia. That is inside in the farm. It will never be a full-time let. A woman from Dundrum in Tipperary contacted me. Again, her property is located in the middle of the farm. These properties will never be housing. You could not have them where there are animals and all kinds of farm activities going on. It is a European directive here again. The same thing always happens with European directives.

There are so many mandarins in the Department and so many senior officials. I spoke to an engineer in Waterford County Council. It is impossible to deal with officials in Transport Infrastructure Ireland, the Department, An Taisce and, of course, the OPW. These officials need a rude awakening. The need to be brought down to rural Ireland and shown what is going on and how people have to live. It is wonderful to have these little outlets in our rural communities in order that strangers can come in. We do not have hotels. We have barely a pub left. This type of tourism offering brings in a nice mix of people. Those people go to the pub and the shops, they go out walking, they meet locals and immerse themselves in local communities. That is good for our culture and it promotes change and everything else.

The Government has added much more to this than was ever asked for by the EU. I do not know what is at. This is déjà vu, because a previous Government did it with bedsits. I was in the Dáil when all the clamour around getting rid of bedsits occurred. The legislation brought forward then got rid of 1,000 units of accommodation overnight, and people had nowhere to go except out onto the streets. It is the very same with this Bill because the Government will not get anything like the numbers it is dreaming about. It thinks there is a magic wand that will deliver many housing units, but that is complete poppycock. They are not there. I have listened to Government backbenchers talking all night about it. I do not know what will happen when it comes to the vote in an hour or two. Will they put their money where their mouths are? It is terrible that they cannot exercise power over the Minister. This is no disrespect to the Minister of State, but Deputy Healy-Rae was right that it is shocking that the senior Minister could not be here for such an important debate. That is what those in government think of rural Ireland. I refer to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which were supposed to represent the daoine beag, the small people, in rural Ireland. It is a case of to hell or to Connacht once again for the people who put their hands in their pockets and invested in restoring lovely old buildings - some of them are historic or listed buildings - and brought people into communities. They worked hard, night and day, when they were busy at weekends and during holiday time. Throughout the rest of the year, the family can use them and so on, but they would never be housing units. They are not built for that, and they are in the wrong place. It will not happen. The Government has got this fundamentally wrong. It has to go back to the drawing board.

Here is the Government again at the Airbnbs. It cannot stop. I have always believed that if someone buys, builds or inherits a house, they can do what they want with it and cannot to be forced to do something they do not want to do with it. Here is the Government again trying to bring in laws retrospectively. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have joined together to put owners who work hard out of business. These people have worked hard to make a bit of money to send their children to college or to get extra money in order to just keep going.

People face tough times in the countryside too, in case the Government thinks they do not. It wants them to go into long-term letting but they will not do that. Not a single house will be gained out of them. At the same time, there are vacant houses around the country and I have been told several times about them. Nothing at all is done to bring those houses back into use and to get people to rent them long-term and do something with them but the Government has given them no incentive. They are taxed at 50% if they let to someone and if they want their house back in a year or a year and a half, they cannot get it back again. Those are the things the Government should be dealing with. We have a lot of public buildings you could house people in. Take St. Finan's in Killarney. It is closed for nearly 20 years. You could house 2,000 people in it but those are the things the Government will not do.

This will have serious implications for employers - people who work hard in this industry - and their employees. It provided a valuable income for all of those people. Now, the Government is giving them four weeks to register. If they need a certificate, whether it is a fire, electrical, plumbing or heating certificate or anything like that, where will they get that at short notice and during the weeks of Christmas? The Government has no consideration at all for people or what it actually means to get a registered builder to do something for you. They are not there. They are not available. It just will not happen like that.

Some of these houses were built in the middle of farms and were left by grandparents. They were done up nicely and they create a bit of income. They will never be long-term lets. There are people coming back to them at set times of the year, for Christmas holidays or summer holidays. They will not rent them out long-term. I cannot understand the logic of what the Government is doing. They are the grandest of hard working people around and it looks to me like the Government wants to sort a Dublin social housing problem by tackling people in rural Kerry. We do not have enough hotels or any hotels in some rural parts of Kerry.

We need these Airbnbs to work alongside guest houses and hotels, to work with the jarveys, boat men, taxi men, bus men and all of the people it takes to create an industry. Now, the Government is making Fáilte Ireland go after them, which I thought was meant to sell our products abroad. Now, it is going to close places down. This is the actual fact of what the Government is doing. It is getting Fáilte Ireland to close people down instead of organising our tourists for next year, bringing in more people and ensuring people come here. These people will not make a bob at all if they cannot have tourists for a few weeks in the summertime. They are depending on it but now the Government has Fáilte Ireland doing something else altogether.

I thank everybody for their contributions, observations and concerns they have raised tonight. I have taken note of them all and will share them with the Ministers, Deputies Burke and Browne, as well. In closing, I thank all Deputies for their thoughtful contributions to this debate and for the careful consideration given to this important legislation. The discussion has reflected both the complexity of the issues involved and the importance of getting this policy right. Members from across the House have highlighted the significant contribution that short-term letting makes to tourism and local economies while also acknowledging the genuine concerns that exist regarding housing availability in many communities.

Those are legitimate perspectives and they are precisely why this legislation seeks to achieve a balanced and proportionate outcome. At its core, this Bill is about ensuring that Ireland has a modern, transparent and effective regulatory framework for a sector that has evolved significantly in recent years. The growth of online booking platforms and the rapid expansion of short-term letting activity have transformed the accommodation landscape and yet, the regulatory framework has not kept pace with those changes. The State does not currently have a complete picture of the scale or distribution of short-term letting activity, nor does it have the comprehensive data required to effectively monitor compliance with planning requirements or to support evidence-based policy making. This legislation addresses that gap. For the first time, it will establish a comprehensive national register of short-term lets, providing transparency and accountability across the sector. It will create a reliable source of information for policymakers, regulators and of course, the public. It will strengthen oversight, improve compliance and ensure that Ireland meets its obligations under EU law, particularly in relation to the implementation of the EU short-term rental regulation.

A number of concerns have been raised throughout this debate about the potential effects of these measures on tourism. This legislation is not designed to undermine tourism, nor is it intended to restrict legitimate tourism accommodation unnecessarily. Tourism remains one of Ireland's most important indigenous industries. It supports employment, investment and economic activity in every region of the country. It sustains livelihoods in rural communities, coastal areas, towns and cities and enriches the social, cultural and economic life of our communities. The Government fully recognises that contribution and remains committed to supporting a competitive, resilient and sustainable tourism sector. However, we must recognise that housing availability and affordability are among the most pressing challenges facing the country. In certain locations, particularly those experiencing sustained housing pressure, the growth of short-term letting activity has contributed to concerns regarding the availability of homes for local residents. While short-term letting is not the sole cause of those pressures, it would be irresponsible to ignore its impact where that impact is evident.

The challenge for Government is, therefore, not to choose between tourism and housing. Both are national priorities. The challenge is to ensure that they can coexist in a way that is sustainable and balanced. This Bill is founded on that principle. The measures contained in the legislation have been carefully designed to support that balance. The Bill does not impose a blanket prohibition on short-term letting. It does not seek to remove legitimate accommodation from the tourism market. Instead, it seeks to ensure that short-term letting operates within a clear and transparent framework, one that provides certainty for operators, transparency for regulators and most importantly, confidence for communities. An important element of that framework is planning compliance. The national planning statement approved by the Government on 3 November provides a clear and consistent national planning policy for short-term letting activity. It establishes certainty for property owners, local authorities and communities. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy James Browne, has introduced a streamlined change-of-use planning process specifically for short-term letting properties.

The planning and development change of use regulation for short-term letting, which came into operation on 29 September 2026, significantly simplifies the retention application process. Applicants are no longer required to submit many of the detailed plans and documentation normally associated with planning applications and a dedicated application form has been introduced specifically for these cases. These changes are intended to reduce administrative burdens and provide a straightforward pathway to compliance for operators who wish to continue their activity within the new framework. The Bill further acknowledges that adjustment will take time. That is why it provides for a two-year transition period for hosts operating in smaller towns and rural areas with populations of fewer than 20,000 people. This transition period reflects the Government's recognition that circumstances vary across the country and that a measured approach is necessary. It provides sufficient time for operators to understand the requirements, regularise their position where necessary and adapt to the new system. Taken together, these measures demonstrate that the Government's approach is not punitive. It is practical, proportionate and phased. It combines clear rules with reasonable transition arrangements and meaningful supports.

Importantly, the Bill goes beyond short-term letting alone. It modernises Ireland's wider tourism accommodation registration framework, strengthens governance arrangements, establishes independent appeals mechanisms and creates a dedicated framework for visitor stays in student-specific accommodation outside term time. These reforms will improve the quality of regulation, strengthen consumer confidence and provide better data and oversight across the accommodation sector as a whole.

Ultimately, this legislation is about ensuring that growth takes place in a managed and transparent way. As the accommodation sector continues to evolve, it is essential that policymakers have access to accurate information and that accommodation being used for tourism purposes is visible, accountable and operating within the appropriate regulatory framework. That is not an unreasonable objective; indeed, it is the minimum that citizens should expect from a modern regulatory system.

What would be difficult to justify is maintaining the status quo indefinitely. It would be difficult to explain why the State should continue to lack basic information about the scale of activity taking place in this sector. It would be difficult to explain why concerns regarding housing availability should simply be set aside, and to explain why Ireland should delay implementing a regulatory framework that provides transparency, accountability and compliance with European requirements.

For these reasons, I firmly believe that the legislation strikes the right balance. It recognises the importance of tourism while acknowledging the need to protect housing supply. It supports legitimate operators while ensuring appropriate oversight. It provides clarity, certainty and transparency, while equipping the State with the tools necessary to better understand and manage the sector in the years ahead.

This is a necessary, proportionate and forward-looking reform. It reflects the realities of a changing accommodation market, responds to the challenges facing communities and provides a sustainable framework for future growth. I, therefore, commend the Bill to the House and look forward to continuing constructive engagement with Members as it progresses through the remaining Stages in the Oireachtas. Gabhaim buíochas le gach duine.

De réir Bhuan-Ordaithe 85(2), cuirfear an vótáil siar go dtí an am vótála seachtainiúil anocht.

Níl leasaithe ar bith in ord faoi choinne an tuarascáil so táimid ag dul go dtí an Chéim Deiridh.

Is anyone looking to speak? No.

I won a bet.

Cuirfear an Bille chun an tSeanaid anois.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 13, lines 11 and 12, to delete “where relevant to defamation proceedings coming within the scope of Directive (EU) 2024/1069,”.

Amendment No. 30 proposes the deletion of the reference to defamation proceedings coming within the scope of the anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPP, directive and paragraph (e) of the definition of "a matter of public interest" in section 15 of the Bill. It is intended to address the points raised in relation to potential inconsistent definitions in the Bill regarding defamation proceedings and other forms of civil and commercial proceedings. A definition of "a matter of public interest" is provided in both section 2 of the Bill, and section 15, which inserts section 34A in the Defamation Act 2009.

These definitions are based on the definition contained in the directive. In both cases, a matter of public interest is defined generally as any matter that affects the public to such an extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it and includes a non-exhaustive list of subjects, which may involve matters of public interest, including fundamental rights or certain activities of public figures. The difference between the two definitions is that paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition of defamation proceedings include a reference to defamation proceedings coming within the scope of the anti-SLAPP directive. This means that, when outlining that an administrative offence in a place other than in the State may constitute a matter of public interest, the definition in the defamation context specifically refers to, where relevant, defamation proceedings coming within the scope of the Act. The same reference to defamation proceedings within the scope of the directive is contained in paragraph (e), which notes that activities aimed at protecting the values enshrined in the treaty of the European Union may constitute matters of public interest where they are relevant to defamation proceedings within the scope of the directive.

To address the concerns raised, it is important to clarify in the first instance what type of defamation proceedings will come within the scope of the directive. The anti-SLAPP directive applies to cross-border proceedings, but the concept of "cross-border" is broadly defined. Proceedings are considered to be cross-border within the meaning of the directive, unless all elements relevant to the situation concerned are located in the same member state. With regard to paragraph (e), where defamation proceedings are brought on the basis of public participation concerning activities aimed at protecting the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, such proceedings are likely to concern elements located outside the State, as the public participation in question will concern matters of relevance at EU level. Where an issue is not a matter of relevance at EU level, it is likely to be captured by the fundamental rights example listed in paragraph (a) of the definition. Therefore, in practice, it is not believed the definition as currently drafted will result in a narrow interpretation.

However, the recent decision of the Court of Justice in the European Commission v. Hungary has broken new ground in the application of Article 2 of the TEU and confirmed it contains legally binding obligations which could potentially form the basis of infringement proceedings against member states, making it potentially more likely to arise in a domestic context. For this reason, and for the avoidance of doubt, amendment No. 30 will delete the reference to defamation proceedings coming within the scope of the anti-SLAPP directive from paragraph (e) of the definition.

However, it is not necessary to amend the reference in the context of administrative offences as referred to in paragraph (d), as amendment No. 29 proposes. Paragraph (d) provides that the allegations of administrative offence in a place other than the State may be considered to be matters of public interest. If defamation proceedings relate to an allegation of an offence outside the State, all elements relevant to the situation concerned will not be located in the same members state and therefore, the proceedings will be considered to be cross-border proceedings within the scope of the directive. In addition, it is not necessary to define the concept of administrative offences. They are not defined in the directive and introducing a definition of administrative offences at national level risks conflicts with the directive. The court will be able to determine what constitutes an administrative offence without the need for a domestic definition, which could inadvertently exclude certain administrative offences or create divergent interpretations in member states. For that reason, I have moved this amendment.

I have just a brief couple of points on this amendment. I did not table any amendments on this Stage. I support amendment No. 30, which the Minister of State spoke about. It seems to be an amendment that could have been made to the Defamation Act when we discussed it previously.

Mine is a broad point about the Oireachtas committee on justice. Deputy Gannon and I are members of it and we are having huge difficulty at the moment with the amount of work required of us in pre-legislative scrutiny, Committee Stage of legislation, Estimates, which are coming up, and the elective work the committee wants to deal with. We have not been able to get the capacity for additional meetings. Likewise, there is a lot of pressure on the Dáil agenda. Everyone is opposed to strategic lawsuits against public participation. Everyone wants to see anyone engaged in it to be dealt with, but the senior Minister told the House that they are not a significant issue in Ireland. It should be put on the record that the only reason we are dealing with this is to comply with an EU regulation the Government signed us up to previously. That is a long way of saying we have more important things to be doing. There are important issues in the criminal justice system that are live and that need to be acted on. The criminal legal aid system is in complete disarray. The Minister has been completely embarrassed by a High Court judgment. It should not have had to come to that point. It is my view, had the Minister-----

Is there any relevance to the legislation or is this just a diatribe by the Deputy about anything that comes to mind?

When I was suggesting that we have important things to be doing, I was also suggesting that the Minister of State do his job and not try to do the job of the Chair of the House.

I was just helping the Chair. I am sure the Chair was just about to remind the Deputy to address the legislation.

I thank both of you for your interest in the Chair. We will bring it to an end.

The Minister of State can hardly help himself. The point I am making is relevant and it is important. The Minister of State might not like to hear it.

The Minister always likes to hear the Deputy - always.

I am sure his party colleagues have told him that he needs to tell the senior Minister to wise up and sort out the criminal legal aid dispute. He needs to engage constructively and find a solution to it. That is what his colleagues are saying in the justice committee. That needs to be prioritised, and the fact that-----

I refer to my previous point, Chair. This is not relevant to this legislation.

It is not for the Minister of State to determine that.

I am asking the Chair for a ruling. It would be nice if the Deputy were speaking-----

In fairness, he is requesting it of me.

I have only three and a half minutes. Others who put forward amendments were not here. Previous Bills went quicker than the time allocated. I do not know whether they intended to be here.

Sorry, Chair. I learned my best interrupting tactics from the Deputy opposite. Will you please try to get him to address the legislation?

On Report stage, contributions have to relate to the amendment.

It does relate to amendment No. 30 because I am saying there are more important things than what is in amendment No. 30.

That is stretching it beyond all credulity.

He is bringing it to an end now. I request Deputy Carthy to bring this to an end.

I do not know what is frustrating the Minister of State so much. He has only been here for about ten minutes to deal with the Bill. People tell me I have an annoying voice, but I did not think it would be that hard for the Minister of State to endure it for four minutes.

I want to put on the record that I never said Deputy Carthy had an annoying voice. I think he has a lovely voice. I think that is important.

I agree. I never heard the Minister of State say that either.

Thank you. I repeat the points I made. In respect of justice, home affairs and migration, there are important things. That is not to say this is not an important issue, but there are more important ones and I encourage the Minister to deal with and address them, because at the moment we have a criminal justice system that is in absolute chaos from top to bottom. In many respects, it is getting worse. Today, we heard about private companies policing Dublin city.

We are off again on another little rant. Chair, the Deputy must on this Stage, Report Stage, speak to the amendment.

We have a court system that is in convulsions-----

No, Deputy Carthy-----

-----a prison system that is overcrowded-----

Report Stage is-----

It appears the Chief Whip just came in to interrupt me.

I am just copying the Deputy.

This is an important point. I was in the Minister of State's constituency on Friday where I met senior gardaí who are doing a tough job right now. They need all eyes on that issue providing them with the support they need and the resources necessary to do their job. I will leave it there. I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for his indulgence.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Carthy. I find it hard to believe anyone would say he has an annoying voice.

I moved my amendment. It is the next element up.

Am I late?

We are on amendment No. 33 now.

Deputy Kelly is not here to move the amendment, so it cannot be moved. He has to be here to move it.

Deputies will have an opportunity on Fifth Stage anyway.

An bhfuil an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach ag cur na ceiste os comhair an Dála ar an staid seo? Is he putting the question to the Dáil?

He is putting the question at this point that he-----

He has to put the question to conclude the passage of the Bill.

The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach is giving me a chance to speak.

I was, and the Deputy interrupted himself.

How does he have a chance to speak?

He is speaking to the question.

We are proposing that the Bill do now pass.

We are still dealing with Fifth Stage. There is an opportunity to contribute now. Most Members never take it up, but an Teachta Tóibín is going to.

I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak at this moment. I apologise in relation to my tardiness on this subject. There is one issue I want to raise. I will raise a couple of points in generality at this moment. A number of people across the country have suffered significantly from SLAPP actions by companies, organisations, etc. They are individuals who may be involved in protecting the environment oe who stand up to big corporations, etc. A large number of those people become targets of litigation, which has the objective not to ever reach a conclusion or judgment, but has the objective to reach a situation where it ties the individual up so much that they cannot function. Issues such as looking for disclosure of large elements of information, running a number of cases at a similar stage.

My concern in all of this is that sometimes the legal system can participate in this practice. It is not the example of the majority of solicitors. Individuals, however, will participate in a process that does not have the objective of reaching a conclusion or a judgment but has the objective of destroying individuals for commercial reasons. There needs to be a system whereby those individuals are protected. Those who are doing the damage need to be punished. The manner in which we sought for that to happen was that they would be referred to the associations that they are part of and therefore receive a certain level of punishment, or the State would introduce fines or difficulties in relation to them as well. If there is no cost to a solicitor who gets involved in a negative SLAPP action, knowingly bringing information that is not true, we are never going to get to a situation that this practice reduces in future.

It is a mistake that we do not have that element strongly enough within the legislation to make sure solicitors do not get involved in this. Without this, there will be a situation whereby many individuals are going to be broken financially. They could be broken in terms of the time that it takes to manage all of the charges or cases brought against them. That was a reason we looked to bring forward amendments to strengthen this. Some of the amendments that we suggested were taken from other jurisdictions that had similar controls and similar punishments for individuals who are committing wrongdoing in this case.

I must now deal with a postponed division relating to the motion regarding hospital overcrowding. On Tuesday, 3 November 2026, on the question, "That the amendment to the motion be agreed to", a division was claimed and in accordance with Standing Order 85(2), that division must be taken now.

I must now deal with a postponed division relating to the motion regarding protected disclosures inquiry. On Wednesday, 4 November 2026, on the question, "That the amendment to the motion be agreed to", a division was claimed and in accordance with Standing Order 85(2), that division must be taken now.

I must now deal with a postponed division relating to Second Stage of the Short-Term Letting and Tourism Bill 2026. On Wednesday, 4 November 2026, on the question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time", a division was claimed and in accordance with Standing Order 85(2), that division must be taken now.