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:

Deputies Réada Cronin and Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh - To discuss Irish artists being ripped off by AI.

Deputy Michael Cahill - To discuss extremely poor mobile telephone reception and black spots throughout County Kerry.

Deputy Donna McGettigan - To discuss the serious under-resourcing of a school in County Clare.

Deputy Albert Dolan - To discuss endometriosis services in Galway.

Deputy Shane Moynihan - To discuss the need to ensure full provision of National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, in schools across Lucan, Clondalkin, Palmerstown, Rathcoole, Newcastle and Saggart.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly - To discuss gaps in support for widows and bereaved partners.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú - To discuss the way in which local specialist music retailers can become approved suppliers to schools.

Deputy Maurice Quinlivan - To discuss the ongoing issue of wandering horses in urban areas.

Deputy Robert O'Donoghue - To discuss the need for an integrated, co-ordinated mental health emergency response.

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

Deputy Emer Currie - To discuss the introduction of a common application process for post-primary school places, and whether Dublin 15 will be included in the initial launch.

Deputy Aidan Farrelly - To discuss the sports capital grant programme in respect of soccer clubs in County Kildare.

The matters raised by Deputies Cronin and Ní Raghallaigh, Cahill, Farrelly, McGreehan and Currie have been selected for discussion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes that:

— affordable, accessible and reliable public transport is essential to tackling the cost-of-living crisis, reducing carbon emissions, easing traffic congestion, improving quality of life and ensuring that people can readily access employment, education, healthcare and other essential services;

— the National Transport Authority (NTA) has announced increases to adult public transport fares averaging approximately 15 per cent from January 2027, with some fares increasing by up to 35 per cent;

— these increases will impose additional costs on commuters, workers, students, and families at a time when many households are struggling to make ends meet amid the ever-increasing cost-of-living crisis; and

— fares are due to rise at a time of severe overcrowding and reliability problems on some public transport routes, therefore, passengers will be paying more for inadequate and unreliable services;

further notes that:

— according to figures reported by IrishCycle.com, public transport usage increased by approximately 21 per cent between 2019 and 2025, compared with population growth of approximately 11 per cent over the same period, demonstrating the growing demand for public transport services;

— there were 363.5 million individual journeys on the Transport for Ireland public transport network in 2025, up 5.8 per cent on 2024 levels, while there were 6.97 million Local Link journeys, an increase of 19 per cent on 2024 levels;

— despite record public transport patronage, Census 2022 data showed that 63 per cent of workers still travelled to work by car, demonstrating the substantial potential to increase public transport use if services are affordable, reliable and available where people need them;

— the NTA acknowledges that a 10 per cent increase in fares can be expected to lead to a 3 per cent fall in passenger numbers;

— making public transport more expensive, risks undermining efforts to encourage a modal shift from private cars, reduce congestion and meet Ireland's climate commitments; and

— the €70 million cost of reversing these fare increases amounts to just 1.3 per cent of the Department of Transport's overall budget for 2027; and

calls on the Government to reverse the NTA's planned public transport fare increases from January 2027.

As the Social Democrat spokesperson on transport, I am honoured to move this very important Private Members' motion, which asks the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, and the Government to reverse the political decision to increase the price of using public transport in Ireland by an average of 15%. I would like to welcome to the Gallery representatives from the Cork, Dublin, Galway and Limerick commuter coalitions who have informed Members quite comprehensively about the impacts of increasing the price of using public transport. None of it is good, but the Minister of State knows this. It is a price that he and the Government seem all too willing to pay. I thank my colleague in Kildare Councillor Chris Pender whose work, through a series of freedom of information, FOI, requests, has shown that the Minister of State and his colleague in the Department have been briefed for some time now that under the Minister of State's leadership the number of people using public transport will reduce to coincide with the planned fare increases. He and his colleague are both on the record of the Dáil saying the opposite. In his opening remarks, the Minister of State might clarify how he intends to correct the record on that. Simply put, the decision to increase public transport fares makes no sense. It makes no political sense, it makes no policy sense, and from a cost-of-living perspective and from a climate action perspective, the impact of congestion on our mental and physical health perspective fails all the checks. Why on earth would the Government pursue it?

The Minister of State will undoubtedly tell us about record levels of investment in public transport, record levels of passengers, and that in comparison to our EU neighbours we are not doing too badly. We should all be very clear in this House that the Government is attempting to undo and undermine every positive step achieved regarding public transport policy and the modal shift in recent years. Affordable, accessible and reliable public transport is essential to tackling the cost-of-living crisis, reducing carbon emissions, easing traffic congestion, improving quality of life and ensuring that people can readily access employment, education, healthcare and other essential services.

We are EU leaders only when it comes to the cost of living, with the highest electricity costs, the highest grocery costs, exorbitant rents and sky-high childcare fees. This tone deaf decision will impose additional costs on commuters, workers, students and families when people are already struggling to put food on the table or heat their homes. Fares are due to rise at a time of severe overcrowding and reliability problems on some public transport routes. Passengers, therefore, will be paying more for inadequate and unreliable services. The Minister of State will probably tell us that these fare hikes will ensure the delivery of 140 new routes. Where are they? Where are the plans? The NTA has told the Oireachtas transport committee that this is about maintaining services and it is not about expansion. Where are the plans? This is asking people to pay for phantom plans and all too often phantom buses.

It is beyond regressive and deeply challenging that the Government is falling back on not having had increased public transport fares as a rationale for increasing them now, next year and the year after. The has been Government planning this for quite a number of years now. There were 365 million individual journeys on the Transport for Ireland public transport network in 2025, up 6%. There were nearly 7 million Local Link journeys in the same year, up close to 20%. Those statistics, those people, under the Minister of State's stewardship, will now reduce in number. In some cases, we will see reductions of up to 10% in public transport users, because the Government would rather place the burden of a shortfall in funding for the NTA on those who use the services. The Minister of State should look around the next time he is on a train, bus, Luas or DART. For every ten passengers he sees, he should say good-bye to one. When they go back to their cars, they will contributing to the cost of congestion. To the Irish State, that comes in at approximately €0.5 billion each year. The Minister of State's own Department has modelled the cost of congestion to reach between €1.5 billion and €2 billion each year by 2040, if unmitigated. The Minister of State does not care about these issues. The Government cannot do forward planning; it is simply too fragile. Rather than adopting a sensible, long-term and sustainable approach to social policy underpinned by the capacity on our roads and of our public transport services and the long-term health of our population, it simply adds 5% here and 20% there, playing a direct role in the ever-increasing cost of existing in this country. A good friend told me before that if you find yourself complaining about traffic, you are in traffic. For some, there is a real, tangible helplessness around that. Their job or location might dictate their journey type.

As policymakers, we have not even scratched the surface when it comes to the potential of public transport. We were getting there; it was arguably the finest legacy of the Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Green Party Government. For some reason, whether it is a shift in political priorities from moving people to moving cars, roads budgets rather than PSO budgets, it is different now. The Tánaiste, Deputy Simon Harris, will criticise you if you do not go to work; this Government will punish you if you do go to work. People will sit in congestion for hours each day or, if they are lucky, they will now pay more for the privilege of a seat on public transport.

I was worried when I read that the Minister of State rejected out of hand the correspondence sent to him by the Just Transition Commission of Ireland. That should be a major red flag to us all. The calibre of the membership of that commission and the evidence-based work they do should fundamentally underlie and inform our policy work. Did the Minister of State reject it out of hand? How could he possibly disagree with its assertions? Did he make any attempt to seek funding from the annual underspend on ring-fenced carbon tax budgets in his Department? That sum was €160 million last year, in his Department. In good faith, I urge the Minister of State to reconsider this decision and review the evidence. I implore him to back public transport users and champion the need for an even greater number of people to turn away from their cars and to be able to rely on and pay for public transport. It is possible with leadership and long-term commitment. It starts with reversing this decision to increase public transport fares.

I commend Deputy Farrelly on his work on this important motion. The Government's decision to increase public transport fares is particularly maddening in my constituency of Cork East, where commuters are already dealing with serious deficiencies in public transport provision. The commuter rail services from Midleton and Cobh into Cork city have been a tremendous success. They are excellent services that people value enormously, and demand for them continues to grow. However, the overcrowding at peak times has reached farcical proportions. Commuters are regularly packed into two-carriage trains, jammed up against one another, struggling to find somewhere to stand, never mind sit. In September, a train driver had to leave their cab to prevent more passengers boarding at Glounthaune and Little Island because the train was already dangerously overcrowded. Irish Rail acknowledges the problem but its response has been that there are simply no spare carriages available.

In this instance, we have a hugely successful commuter rail service, yet cannot provide enough carriages to accommodate the people using it. It is as if we were living in an impoverished country struggling to provide the most basic infrastructure. I strongly suspect that the Department of public expenditure's ruthless grip on funding the basics has struck again here. Now the Government has the audacity to tell these commuters that they should pay more for the privilege.

If the rail service is a success undermined by overcrowding, the bus service throughout Cork East is an altogether more dismal story. Consider Youghal, a major town with no passenger railway, whose residents have been condemned to endure an appallingly unreliable and inefficient bus service. The journey from Youghal to Cork, a distance of approximately 50 km, can take almost two hours at peak times - two hours to travel 50 km, in 2026. That is when the bus actually turns up. Last Friday, the 7 a.m. service from Youghal to the Munster Technological University campus was cancelled. Imagine depending on that service to get to college or work. Across east Cork, people without cars face enormous difficulties accessing employment, education and healthcare. For those who do have cars, these services provide precious little incentive to leave them at home. How can the Government seriously expect people to make the switch to public transport when the alternative is so unreliable or overcrowded and now increasingly expensive? These fare increases should be reversed. The Government needs to provide enough train carriages, reliable bus services and affordable fares. These are basic expectations in a country with a flourishing economy, and commuters have every right to expect better.

I thank Deputy Farrelly for this very timely motion. I welcome to the Gallery all the people who came in to speak in the audiovisual room. I also welcome the four students who are on work experience. They are very welcome and I thank them for all the work they are doing this week. At a time when the cost of living is so high, everything is increasing - grocery prices, the cost of fuel, rents and mortgages, and the cost of education. Now there is a rising cost in public transport. It is one kick after the next and people are really fed up.

I will describe how the NTA has managed to annoy people in Dublin South-Central over the past while. I had four public meetings about the 80 bus from Chapelizod into town. They changed the route, then they had to change it again. There were ghost buses and it was an absolute disaster. The NTA accepted that it was not correct and has almost corrected it. People in Chapelizod are absolutely fed up with the fact that they have a bus that is supposed to be reliable but is not, and now they have to pay more for a service that has not been exemplary. It is the same with the F1, F2, F3 and S4. They are constantly late. People are unable to rely on them. There are three buses going the same route; I cannot understand that. People in Inchicore and Bluebell were told in the summer that there was no money left in the NTA and it could not do anything about the route connecting the community of Bluebell and Inchicore back into Meath Street, where traditionally people have done their shopping. They were told there was not enough money in the NTA. I say to the Minister of State that people pay their taxes for things like bus and Luas services, and they pay their fares. It is not like they are getting that service for free. They pay for it in their taxes and they also pay to use it. The fact that the NTA has run out of money is not the fault of the person who uses the bus or Luas; it is the fault of the Government that has not funded it properly. Maybe we could argue that the NTA has not used it properly but that has nothing to do with the person who is using the bus or train to get from A to B. People are fed up. They cannot keep paying out for the Government not to put in place the public services that should exist.

Let us be honest. For people who take public transport, which I do if I am not cycling or walking, we could get on a Luas and be packed in like sardines. We are absolutely jammed in beside each other. For those who use a wheelchair or have a buggy, good luck trying to get on. It is the same for the bus early in the morning or at commuter times. Those who have any mobility issues will not be able to get on because it is absolutely jammed. There are not enough services but people are now expected to pay more. For those who are struggling, and that is a lot of people, the increase in the fares is going to put people back in their cars, which is exactly what we do not want in respect of our emissions.

I thank Deputy Farrelly for the heart he brings to the issue of public transport.

What people find so frustrating about Government is that faced with crises, it just keeps failing to do the obvious. The reason we are here this morning and the reason the Social Democrats have afforded their Private Members' business time to this issue is in a cost-of-living crisis, the Minister of State's Department and the Government are standing over an increase in bus fares. That is incredible. We are simply here because we want the Government to get the basics right. Being able to afford to get to work, college, a hospital appointment or home to a family without eating into a budget that is already overstretched should not be seen as a luxury. They are basic expectations of a functioning government, yet from January, the Minister of State's Department and the Government will preside over a 15% increase in transport fares. I sometimes wonder whether the Government appreciates the level of increased anger in communities. If it does appreciate it, its response seems to be to seek somebody to blame. There is a world in which a leader takes to a stage and instead of seeking to throw people on social welfare under the bus, that leader would talk about how we can get more people onto buses cheaper and for free, but that does not exist in a Government that seeks only to afford blame and never provide leadership. It seems to think the answer is another performance of toughness, another group to point the finger at or another announcement designed to show who it is prepared to come down hard on.

People wake up in the morning and wonder how they are getting to work. They do not wonder who the Government is going to blame for its failures. That is where the Government's attention should be. I could spend every second of these three minutes talking about the failures within our bus and transport services, including the ghost buses, the fact that people are standing at bus stops for over an hour watching two or three full buses pass by and ask how the Government seeks to achieve a service that is worthy of a modern republic that has the wealth to invest in a public transport initiative. At this moment in time, however, all we are seeking from the Government is a commitment that there will not be a 15% increase in transport costs. What does the Minister of State think will be the implications of that? What we are talking about here is a minimal expectation of allowing people the means to get to work or to a hospital appointment or where they need to go using public transport in a way that does not make them have to cut their cloth even further to the bone in a cost-of-living crisis. We have seen what this Government can do when it is able to find money and resources to provide for one particular group. This group we are asking for are simply people who use public transport. It is the Minister of State's responsibility, and the expectation is that he will solve this.

I thank Deputy Farrelly for tabling the motion. I welcome the members of the commuter coalitions in the Gallery, in particular, Mr. Alex Garvey, transport advocate extraordinaire in my constituency. In my constituency in south Dublin, a huge number of people are reliant on public transport, including buses, Luas and the DART. Many of my constituents, although not all, are served well by public transport. We say "Hello" to the bus driver when we get on and we thank the bus driver when we leave. Many people are on their way to work or college or simply going about their business. Prams, wheelchairs, younger people getting up so older people can sit down - there is nothing more prosocial in my constituency than our shared use of public transport.

As Dublin has grown and developed, public transport has become more vital to connect us. It has been a major focus of my constituency work because of its impact on the quality of life of my constituents but also because improving public transport is essential to meeting our climate obligations, particularly in cities. Therefore, imagine my shock and, indeed, genuine confusion when the Government decided to support an increase to public transport fares in the middle of a soaring cost-of-living crisis hitting every household in the country and the concurrent breakdown of climate internationally. I cannot think of the more aggressive step taken by a transport Minister in recent memory, and I mean that sincerely. I think of the nurses who are going to hospitals today in lieu of the public pay deal, the older person going to an appointment, the people who are going to school and college today and even the staff here in Leinster House who I meet on the bus occasionally. The Government is punishing the people who are most reliant and most in need of transport. This is punishing commuters. It is deliberately counterproductive to our climate goals. It is a concerted effort by the Government to increase the cost on households. That is absolutely shameful. It is antisocial and deeply regressive. If the Government had any notion of helping our citizenry, it would accept this motion and reverse the increases to public transport fares. I anticipate that it will not, however, because this Government is not for ordinary people using ordinary public transport; it is for something else and now we all have to pay for it.

I move:

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

"affirms the Government's efforts to:

— deliver a significant expansion of new and enhanced public transport services;

— provide more frequent, reliable, accessible and sustainable public transport services;

— maintain affordable fares and roll-out contactless payment systems across the network;

— deliver major public transport projects, to expand capacity and connectivity;

— reduce congestion and support households, businesses and regional growth;

— place the Public Service Obligation (PSO) programme on a sustainable long-term footing; and

— support the achievement of Ireland's climate and emissions reduction targets; and

notes that:

— Budget 2027 delivers a record €1.042 billion allocation to the PSO services across the bus, light rail and heavy rail networks, and this funding supports a significant expansion and enhancement of our public transport network, with approximately 140 new or enhanced services in the planning pipeline for 2027, across flagship programmes such as Connecting Ireland, BusConnects, and new town services;

— following Budget 2027, the Department of Transport has been working closely with the National Transport Authority (NTA) and Transport for Ireland (TFI) operators, to develop a comprehensive service plan for 2027, focused on expanding and enhancing public transport services across the network, and the plan will be supported by the increased PSO funding provided in the Budget, together with projected revenue from the planned fare adjustments;

— the Government also remains committed to the timely delivery of major public transport infrastructure projects, underpinned by a record allocation of €24.3 billion for transport in the National Development Plan (NDP) 2026-2030, and this unprecedented investment will support the delivery of transformative projects across the country, enhancing mobility, reducing congestion, strengthening regional connectivity and advancing Ireland's climate objectives;

— the Government has committed unprecedented levels of investment in transport, increasing funding by almost 87 per cent compared to the previous five-year period, and while the scale of investment is significant, the delivery of major infrastructure projects requires a phased approach, with funding prioritised to ensure projects are progressed efficiently and provide maximum benefit for passengers and taxpayers;

— more than €18 billion has been allocated to public transport capital investment under the NDP and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund over the period 2026-2030, supporting the advancement of transformative projects including MetroLink, Luas Finglas, DART+, the Western Rail Corridor, the Limerick to Foynes rail line reinstatement, capacity enhancement projects between Hazelhatch to Portarlington stations, Galway to Athenry stations, the Cork Area Commuter Rail Programme and the BusConnects programme, and this investment will also facilitate the roll-out of the new DART+ fleet and the commencement of early construction works on DART+ West route, helping to expand capacity, improve connectivity and enhance public transport services across the country;

— the continued growth in passenger demand demonstrates increasing public confidence in the public transport network, highlights the success of ongoing investment in services and infrastructure, and it also underscores the importance of maintaining and expanding capacity through sustained investment, ensuring that the network can continue to meet rising demand, support economic activity, reduce congestion, and facilitate the transition to more sustainable travel patterns, in line with Ireland's climate objectives;

— last year saw an increase of almost 20 million journeys, or 6 per cent, compared with 343.6 million journeys in 2024, reflecting the growing role of public transport in meeting the daily travel needs of communities across the country;

— a strong example of this progress is Connecting Ireland, which has delivered a step-change in rural public transport connectivity since its launch in 2022, with over 180 new and enhanced services introduced nationwide and almost 8 million passenger journeys recorded in 2024, and the programme is improving access to employment, education, healthcare and social opportunities for communities across rural Ireland;

— a sustainable level of passenger fare revenue is fundamental to the long-term resilience and financial sustainability of the public transport network, alongside Exchequer support, fare revenue underpins the provision of existing services, enables investment in new and enhanced services, and ensures the network can continue to grow in response to increasing demand, while delivering value for money for both passengers and taxpayers;

— the Government recognises that an affordable, reliable and accessible public transport network is essential to encouraging a sustained shift away from private car use and achieving wider economic, social and climate objectives;

— since 2022, passengers have benefited from a range of significant affordability measures, including:

— a 20 per cent cost of living fare reduction;

— the extension of the 90-minute fare;

— a 50 per cent Young Adult and Student discount;

— free travel for children aged under nine;

— expanded eligibility under the Free Travel Scheme, administered by the Department of Social Protection;

— while adult fares will increase, many child fares will be reduced, and young adult fares will remain discounted at 50 per cent, helping to improve affordability for families and young people; and

— free travel will continue for everyone eligible, including the under nines and the over 65s;

— this means 1.5 million people, or almost 27 per cent of our population, enjoy free travel on the basis of their age;

— these measures have been accompanied by strong growth in passenger demand, with a record 363.5 million journeys made across the TFI network in 2025, and this sustained increase in patronage reflects growing reliance on public transport and highlights the need for continued investment to maintain, enhance and expand services in line with passenger needs;

— the NTA continues to work closely with operators to improve efficiency and maximise value for money from both public funding and fare revenue, however, the significant expansion of services in recent years, coupled with increasing operating costs, means that a sustainable public transport system requires an appropriate balance between Exchequer support and passenger fare revenue; and

— against this backdrop, public transport remains highly affordable and competitive, even following the 2027 fare adjustment, fares will remain approximately 8 per cent lower in real terms than they were eight years ago, and the additional revenue generated, alongside continued Government investment, will support improved capacity and reliability, help meet rising demand, facilitate further service enhancements, and ensure the continued delivery of the Government's public transport and climate ambitions.".

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. Before I go into what is in the script, I want to say two things. I think everybody who has spoken and the Government have the same thing in mind, which is to have a public transport system that does not have ghost buses, that is on time, that provides frequency and that gets the nurses and people to school and work and does so efficiently. Every public transport service we put in place is subsidised. There is no public transport service making a profit. I think I heard the work "sustainable" from Deputy Farrelly. I have listened in this House over the past two years to people criticising the services they have or do not have, such as signage not being right, missing buses and all of that. That is what we intend to correct. I just want to say that, so that everybody will have a public transport service that they can rely on and that they can use and continue to use rather than have to contemplate buying a car. That is my role in all of this. I have listened to what the Deputies said and I have taken notes. I was in County Cork last weekend. I was talking to members of the Cork Chamber of Commerce. We talked about all the infrastructure that is being built there for rail and all of the things that are being done there. Again, they told me there is a problem with overcrowding. There is an overcrowding problem in Galway. We are going to rectify that, but what we have to do is have public transport on a sustainable level from the start.

The fare adjustments are necessary to help address the cost of increases experienced across public transport. They will also contribute to the continued delivery and expansion of key transport programmes including BusConnects, Connecting Ireland and DART+. Despite fare revenue contributing approximately 38% of the public service obligation, PSO, nationally, this remains below the European average of 44%, requiring significant Exchequer funding. The Government investment in the PSO programme in 2025 amounted to €850 million, including the additional supplementary allocation of €192 million to sustain and enhance transport services across the network. Further increases in the investment will be coming in 2026 and 2027.

The cost of delivering subsidised transport has risen substantially for different reasons since 2022, with significant increases in costs. Over the same period, fare reduction measures were introduced, including a 20% cost-of-living discount, a 50% young adult card discount and free travel for children aged under nine. These measures have expanded access to affordable public transport, with approximately 1.5 million people - it is important to say this - or 27% of our population now eligible for free or discounted travel. These measures are in addition to what has now been an essential eight-year freeze on fare increases. While delivering important social and inclusion benefits, they have also increased the gap between the cost of operating services and the revenue recovered through fares.

While maintaining affordable fares remains a key objective for this Government, it is equally important for passengers to ensure that sufficient resources are available to introduce new routes, increase service frequencies, improve reliability, enhance accessibility and connect more communities to public transport. That is what the Deputy was talking about when he tabled the motion. It is important to note that while adult fares will increase by an average of 15%, child fares are being reduced in several areas nationally. For example, in the Dublin commuter zone, regional cities, participating towns and Transport for Ireland, TFI, Local Link services, a new reduced child rate will apply, set at 33% of the equivalent adult rate.

Importantly, the determination safeguards existing government-supported fare initiatives, including the free travel scheme, free travel for children under nine years of age, and free companion travel arrangements for those aged 70 and over, thereby maintaining important accessibility and social inclusion supports across the public transport network. Even with these planned changes, the National Transport Authority, NTA's assessment is that fares will remain approximately 8% lower in real terms than they were eight years ago. Notwithstanding any demand elasticity impacts associated with the fare adjustment, passenger numbers are expected to continue growing throughout 2027, reflecting strong underlying demand for public transport. Research consistently demonstrates that factors such as service availability, frequency, reliability, journey times and overall service quality have a greater influence on travel behaviour than fares.

Continued investment is our motto. To further advance these efforts, budget 2027 delivers a record €1.042 billion allocation to public service obligation, PSO, services across the bus, light rail and heavy rail networks. This funding supports a significant expansion and enhancement of our public transport network, with approximately 140 new or enhanced services in the planning pipeline for 2027. We will be publishing that plan before the end of this year. These service enhancements are across flagship programmes such as Connecting Ireland, BusConnects, and new town services. In this regard, officials in the Department have been working closely with the NTA and Transport for Ireland operators to develop a comprehensive service plan for 2027. The Government has also prioritised balanced regional development through continued investment in rural transport services. I see that myself in Galway where we now have local link buses coming from villages and bringing people into the city. They are picking people up from places where there is no other bus service. I see it happening around the country and that will continue. The allocation will also maintain ring-fenced funding for the dedicated rural transport programme, supporting local link services across the country and ensuring that communities in rural areas continue to have access to essential demand-responsive transport services.

As the Deputies will be aware, the Connecting Ireland rural mobility plan is a major public transport initiative developed by the NTA to increase connectivity outside of our major cities and towns. It has seen exponential growth over the last few years, with 185 new and expanded services rolled out since 2022. Over 240 towns and villages have been connected to the public transport network, and it is this investment that the Government will continue to support through the reinvestment of fare revenue. A critical element of this funding is to allow all citizens to access these essential services, and therefore the Department is prioritising ensuring these services are accessible for all, including people with a disability. Accessibility improvements are being advanced through three key strands: embedding universal design in all new infrastructure projects; increasing investment to retrofit legacy infrastructure and supporting a "turn up and go" experience; and expanding independent travel supports, including the NTA's independent travel support scheme to additional urban rural areas.

We fully recognise the significant pressures facing the public transport sector, including those arising from global economic developments and increased operating costs. The Department and the NTA continue to work closely with public transport operators to monitor demand, assess operational impacts and ensure the network remains responsive to emerging challenges. It is therefore essential that measures introduced be carefully targeted and sustainable, ensuring that they deliver meaningful benefits for passengers while supporting the long-term resilience of the public transport system. The National Transport Authority continuously monitors the punctuality, reliability, and demand for services. I have met the NTA in relation to bus services here in Dublin and elsewhere, to make sure that it makes the changes to make the services more workable. It is recognised that reliability and service frequency remain ongoing challenges across parts of the public transport network, driven by factors such as traffic congestion, workforce shortages, particularly among drivers and mechanics, and other operational incidents. I dealt with a Topical Issue yesterday morning in relation to congestion on trains in Cork. Next year, we will be putting additional carriages into the public transport system, freeing up carriages that we can put onto the Intercity routes to help with that congestion. Right now, every available carriage is being used for public transport. Apart from those undergoing scheduled maintenance, every carriage is out there on the rail lines.

The Government is committed to significant investment in our transport system. In budget 2027, we allocated an additional €6 billion for the progression of MetroLink. Total public transport capital investment in the current national development plan period will be over €18 billion. This investment will advance a range of transformative projects across the country, including MetroLink, Luas Finglas, DART+, Cork area commuter rail, the reinstatement of the western rail corridor between Claremorris and Athenry, the Foynes rail freight line reinstatement and BusConnects programmes in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford.

I just want to get something straight. At a time when the UN is warning that we are about to breach 1.5 oC global warming; when transport emissions in Ireland are stubbornly high, year in and year out; when 70% of all daily trips are made in private cars; and when we are facing €26 billion in fines from the EU for not meeting our climate targets, this is the Government's answer when it comes to public transport. At a time when Dublin is the third most congested city in the world, when we have the M50 at a standstill every day and when there is no longer a peak time - every hour is peak time in Ireland - the Government's answer is to raise prices on public transport. At a time when wars in Ukraine and Iran have crippled world economies and pushed up fossil fuel prices, hitting the most vulnerable people in our communities who are unable to pay for their energy and their fuel, the Government's answer is to these problems is to make it more expensive for people to use public transport. That is exactly what the Government is doing - making it more expensive. This policy is nonsensical, regressive and is not based on any of the evidence. I would ask the Government and the Minister of State to walk away from it because it does not make any sense.

The Minister of State spoke about the need to have money in order to make the service better for people. I am a TD for the Wicklow constituency and I know how underserved public transport has been. My constituents are continuously calling out a substandard public transport system in Wicklow. They were promised a No. 199 bus, one of the so-called enhanced services. That was meant to start last September but it is the bus that never showed up at all. We have other buses from Go-Ahead that are unreliable because they are constantly being caught up in congestion. They are being cancelled regularly and there are inconsistent timetables. We have bus services in the west of Wicklow that have not been upgraded for 20 years. My constituents and I understand the problems arising from having an unreliable and infrequent public transport service but that service must be affordable as well. That seems to be the element that the Government has forgotten in all of this. It must be affordable. We need to encourage people to move out of cars. While it may not seem like a lot of money to the Minister of State, these fare increases are going to hit the most vulnerable people in our communities. I ask the Minister of State to listen carefully to the speeches today from across all benches and to reconsider this policy.

The Government is currently paying €100 million per month in excise cuts for fossil fuel subsidies for cars. This is €70 million. I ask the Minister of State to change his decision on this.

I am just shocked. Two years into this Government's handling of many different challenges in this society, this one just screams "out of touch". It is not just that it is on top of a cost-of-living crisis, soaring rents and house prices, soaring energy prices and people squeezed at every single juncture of their lives. It is that the Government chooses to increase public transport costs. It is genuinely mind-boggling that it has chosen to do it. It is not just that we are in an energy and climate crisis where we are not reaching our targets by any stretch of the imagination, and where the Government has signalled that it is happy to just take the hit on EU fines rather than do the work to invest in a just transition that could benefit our economy, society and the globe. It is not just that this is a moment in time when every country on the globe is trying to move towards active and public transport as the appropriate direction of travel, pun intended. It is that the Government does not get that people are being so pushed on this. It is that its whole policy direction is wrong. It is what it signifies. What the Government should be looking towards is not just what the Minister of State has covered in his speech, which was all about the shortcomings of the public transport system that we all endure daily. Rather, it is affordability. It is the signal to our population that active and public transport is where we should all be moving to - out of our cars and onto buses, the Luas, DARTs and commutes that actually work for people at a time when they need that so much.

I take this moment to reiterate what our vision of a social democracy is. It is where you pay your taxes and, in return, you get a suite of public services like transport, healthcare, education, childcare, disability services and climate mitigation. These are the things we should be able to rely on to live a life of dignity no matter what challenges we face. This Government does not seem to get that. It instead seems to see relying on the market, privatisation where it can and lining the pockets of corporate interests that lobby it day by day as the best way to resolve all of the crises we face as a society. This is so tone deaf and I wonder if the Government sees the Ireland I see. Does it see the people on our streets hungry and homeless? Does it see the commuters stretched and stressed every day trying to make ends meet and fend for their families? If it did, it would not do this.

The refusal to back down on this particular policy is illogical and really frustrating because the Government has a significant budget surplus, yet it is adding this cost to commuters when there is no reason the Government could not cover it. It could make, in budgetary terms, a simple and small action that would do two things. First, it would help people who are struggling. It would help people who are paying for public transport, and who have to get on the bus or the Luas and take the trains, and who are reliant on it. They have to pay that in order to get to work or to hospital. The Government could actually help them. The Taoiseach gets up week after week and frames it about the budget, how there is only so much that the Government can do, how this situation is out of its hands and how energy costs are spiralling internationally. This is something that the Government could do. It is completely in the Government's control. It could decide today that there would be no fare increases. Let us make that clear to the people of this country.

Hear, hear.

Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Independents could do something that would help people and make things a little easier. Obviously, it is a small amount, but it would still be significant. The Government could stop that fare increase. Why will it not do so?

The second thing pausing it would do is send a signal that we want people on public transport, and that we support them and want people to get out of their cars. In my constituency, I have been campaigning to get a proper public bus service that would work for people and with them. We have got some changes that have made a difference, but it is still not a quality public service that people can rely on. There are still issues with ghost buses and overcrowding on the buses. People cannot get to work. They cannot rely on things. They cannot get to the hospital. There is so much wealth in this country. It comes back to what my colleague said earlier about a social democracy. The difference between the Social Democrats and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is that we believe in public services, and we will fund them to make sure that they work for people and that everyone in this country has access to decent public transport.

Sinn Féin supports this motion and we thank the Social Democrats for tabling it.

The planned public transport fare increases are unfair and completely out of touch with the reality facing ordinary people. Families are being squeezed from every direction between rents, mortgage repayments, grocery bills, energy costs among the highest in Europe and childcare costs. Now, the Government wants commuters to dig even deeper into their pockets. The NTA intends to impose fare increases averaging 15%, with some increases reaching as high as 35%. That is clearly not a minor adjustment. What makes it even more insulting is that passengers are being asked to pay more for a service that too often fails them with overcrowded trains, buses that never show up, delays and cancellations. The Government wants them to pay more for this privilege.

The truth is that this decision exposes a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Government transport policy. Ministers constantly tell us that they want people to leave their cars at home and that they want to tackle congestion and reduce emissions. They claim that they are serious about climate action, but the same Government is proposing to increase the cost of public transport. That makes absolutely no sense. The NTA's figures acknowledge that a 10% increase in fares can result in a 3% drop in passenger numbers. The truth is that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Independents know that higher fares will push people away from using public transport. This undermines their so-called objectives on affordability, climate and modal shift. Unsurprisingly, they are pushing ahead anyway. It is rhetoric rather than action and not a credible plan.

Particularly frustrating is that these fare increases are being proposed at the wrong time. Public transport demand is growing rapidly. Between 2019 and 2025, it increased by approximately 21%, which is almost double the rate of population growth. In 2025 alone, there were 363 million passenger journeys on the Transport for Ireland network. Local Link carried almost 7 million passenger journeys, which is an increase of 19% in a single year. What is the Government's response? It is to make it more expensive for them. These passenger numbers should have been the signal to advance capacity, improve reliability and accelerate investment. Instead, the Government is penalising people for using public transport.

Communities in my constituency of Kerry and throughout rural Ireland continue to wait for transport services that they were promised years ago. The roll-out of Connecting Ireland has slowed dramatically. Many villages remain poorly connected and bus services that were in place a number of years ago have now been reduced or have disappeared altogether. I am talking about routes from Kilflynn to Abbeydorney and from Lixnaw to Tralee in particular. Young people in those areas without access to a car remain isolated. Older people are struggling to access services, but the Government's priority is to increase fares and communities are being left behind.

The Government will undoubtedly claim that there is no money, but according to the motion before the House, reversing these fare increases would cost approximately €70 million. It sounds like a significant figure until you put it into context. That is approximately 1.3% of the Department of Transport's overall budget for 2027. The Government is asking commuters, students and working families to pay more to save an amount that barely registers. It tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of the Government.

Sinn Féin believes that public transport should be affordable, reliable and accessible. We believe that investment should focus on passengers, not balance sheets, and that rural communities deserve the same level of ambition as major urban centres.

We believe that the Government should go much further than preventing these fare increases and that is why we called for free public transport for all under-18s in our recent alternative budget. When families are under relentless pressure, that measure would reduce costs, tactical child poverty and encourage sustainable travel habits from an early age.

We are clear. These fares are wrong. They should be scrapped immediately and we support the motion.

Every day, commuters are forced onto unreliable and overcrowded services. I have constantly highlighted issues from my constituency where people are becoming unwell on overcrowded services or are being left on the train platform or the side of road. It is simply outrageous that the Government believes that my constituents should have to pay even more for the substandard services that they have to travel on every day.

Public transport is an essential public service for people to go about their daily lives. It is not a luxury, yet in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, the Government is telling people that the cost of yet another everyday essential is going to rise. It stands in direct contrast to the claims that the Minister of State and his colleagues make that the Government is encouraging more people to use public transport when even the NTA itself has said that passenger numbers will fall as a result of this fare hike. Only four new services were introduced this year, which demonstrates a shocking lack of commitment to public transport from the Government. Now, it is expecting hard-pressed commuters to pick up the slack for its failure to properly fund our public transport system. That is unacceptable. The Government needs to stop this fare hike from going ahead.

The Government also needs to address the service issues that I have raised in here many times before. Services are at crisis point. In particular, there is a lack of rail services and rail carriages. The town of Athenry has been waiting two years for its promised bus service while people are forced to cram onto severely overcrowded trains. The people of Gort, Kinvara and the wider south Galway area regularly contact my office in relation to lack of capacity and options on bus services and trains, with commuters being left on the side of the road because the services are full. The town of Loughrea and villages like Craughwell have fewer public transport services now than they did five years ago when they lost their Bus Éireann service. Too often, people are left stranded on the roadside as buses arrive in Loughrea completely full or well behind schedule. It is impossible for local people to rely on these services or to plan their day around them. A town the size of Loughrea and its surrounding villages deserve far better than that. We urgently need to see hourly services from Loughrea and surrounding areas to be restored. That is the bare minimum that residents there deserve. The NTA must include this in its plans for 2027 alongside the dedicated bus service for Athenry and improvements on those routes serving the south Galway area. Crucially, we need to see additional capacity on rail services.

Proposals from the Government to increase public transport fares by up to 33% are entirely unjust and nonsensical. These fare increases will not impact as many people in Monaghan or Cavan, as we have very little access to bus services at all. It will not impact rail users in Monaghan or Cavan either, given the deprioritisation of our county by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael following the strategic rail review. However, those who do have access to services are going to be expected to pay additionally for buses that turn up late, if they turn up at all.

What will we get? The CEO of Bus Éireann got a €50,000 pay increase last year, bringing her total pay to €260,000. Dublin's bus chief saw an increase from €200,000 to €260,000. Irish Rail's chief's salary increased by €75,000 to €300,000. Of course, it should not go without mention that this is occurring at the same time that the Government is planning to increase road tolls, many of them on roads whose costs have been paid back to the private operators many times over already.

To add insult to injury, departmental officials confirmed to me at the Committee of Public Accounts last week that they intended to double the cost of the school transport scheme next year. In the last three years, school buses have increased in price from €50 to €100. Now, people are going to pay €200 for their school bus transport next year. That is if they can get a school bus. So many pupils cannot get a school bus to school. It is ridiculous and is all happening under the watch of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the so-called Independents. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil seem to think that a person should be punished for having the audacity to go about their day-to-day life, be that going to work or hospital appointments or kids getting to school. This racket of ripping off commuters while lining the pockets of already lavishly paid executive needs to come to an end now. The transport system is already in chaos. It is broken for many users. The Government needs to rethink its proposals.

I thank my colleague, Deputy Pa Daly, who tabled the original motion on fare hikes to the floor with the Dáil. I want to thank Deputies for tabling the motion this morning because it gives the Government a chance to reflect on what is a very, very, very bad decision - a decision to punish commuters in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Last night, we debated the Sinn Féin motion on toll hikes. The Government is determined to get people every which way if they have the audacity to leave their house.

In my constituency of Dublin Fingal West, we do not have a college, a university, a minor injuries unit or a primary care centre. As economic studies have shown us to be, we are underemployed for the population. My constituents been very badly served by consecutive Governments, including Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the so-called Independents, who are not even a little bit independent because they nod every time the Government says it has a really bad decision to make. As a result, my constituents have no choice. They have to leave the area where they live in order to work, to go to hospital or to go to college.

What does the Government do? It is after jacking up the fares already. Last year, it put fares up for people who had the neck to live in Dublin - to be Dubliners, for the most part. The Government took them out of the Dublin commuter zone and now they pay more already. They are Dubs. They live in Dublin. They take the train from Dublin, usually into town, and they are getting punished for that. Now, the Government is going to put fares up again. They have no choice. If they need to go to hospital, if they have an appointment or if they want to go to college, they have to take public transport or they have to drive. The Government is getting them every which way. If they take the M1, the M50 or the port tunnel, if they are standing on the side of the road waiting on a ghost bus or one that only eventually arrives, the Government is going to get them. If they are squashed onto overcrowded trains, it is going to get them. There will not be any enhanced services. The NTA has confirmed that to me. There will be no new bus routes next year, no investment beyond that which has been announced and announced to death.

Regarding battery-operated trains, we know they are coming because we can see them sitting in the station. They are just not yet operational. For the moment, my constituents, who keep being told that they will get battery-operated trains at some point - indeed, they will - have to squash onto overcrowd trains and the Government is telling them that they have to pay more. The Government gives them absolutely no option. It has starved the area of resources and now it is telling them this. If I could have the Minister of State's attention for a moment, the very least the Government should be doing in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis - I would not expect more than the very least from it - is not making things worse for people.

I thank the Social Democrats for giving us another opportunity to discuss this important issue. The Government wants to get people out of cars and onto public transport, so one would think that the very first thing it would do is make public transport more accessible. Increasing public transport fares in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis is bonkers. Common sense would tell us that, but when it comes to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, as in the Minister of State's case, the Independents, common sense is not very common.

Not only is the Government expecting people to pay more, but it is actually asking them to pay more for less. It expects families, workers, students, pensioners and other commuters to pay more for less. Services are not being delivered and ghost buses are becoming the norm. Major public transport projects are years behind schedule. In my area, we have the Clonburris development. There will be over 10,000 homes there. I was on the council when the plan was being developed. Services like transport, schools and other public amenities were meant to go hand in hand with this development. We spent hours debating this and trying to ensure that the plan was fully integrated. Not everybody agreed on the plan at the council and people had different ways of doing things, but we all agreed that we had to have adequate public transport in the plan.

In fairness, to South Dublin County Council, it played its part and produced a plan but successive Government Ministers have not been doing their jobs. One of the big areas where we are being let down is public transport. The continual delays to DART+ South West have had a huge impact on residents. I am frequently contacted by residents who bought homes in a strategic development zone. This was approved and fast-tracked on the promise of sustainable, high-frequency, high-capacity public transport. Instead, homeowners, residents and commuters have been left with an under-resourced rail service that is already failing to cope with the current demand. Peak-hour services are constantly beyond capacity. Passengers at Clondalkin and Fonthill train stations are regularly left to stand in cramped and unsafe conditions, and sometimes they struggle to board the trains at all. Carriages are frequently excessively hot and stuffy, creating an unpleasant passenger experience.

In the brief time I have left, I call on the Government to bring forward DART+ South West; to increase carriage capacity along the line, particularly at Kishoge, Clondalkin and Fonthill stations; and to address the overheating and ventilation issues and the continual delays of trains.

The mixed messages coming from the Government are infuriating people. On the one hand, the Government talks about developing sustainable public transport systems, investing in active travel and encouraging people out of cars and onto public transport, but here we have an increase in public transport costs. It makes no sense whatsoever. The Government should be using the billions we have in extra taxes to invest in public transport now, specifically more buses, more trains, better active travel and cycling lanes. We have a more expensive and deteriorating bus service in Dublin West. People are deeply frustrated with ghost buses, electronic noticeboards that do not work and trains that are rammed. Irish Rail tells us that it is at capacity, and no extra carriages will be available soon. I was contacted recently by young people from Edmund Rice College who told me they are often left standing on the platform when they cannot get a train because it is full. Safe cycling routes from Clonsilla and Ongar are not an option at the moment due to several dangerous pinch points. In ever-expanding areas like Tyrrelstown, Kilmartin, Hollywoodrath, Ongar and Hansfield, public transport provision lags well behind development. The development of 18,000 new homes in Dunsink was recently in the news, but the NTA tells us that the public transport system it is based on - the Luas - is years away. The NTA will not even look at its provision until the mid-2030s.

The Metro West from Tallaght through Blanchardstown to the airport has been knocked on the head until at least 2042. It was supposed to run past my house. Dublin West has a population of 140,000 people and yet does not have a direct bus service to the airport. How shocking is that? If the Government is really serious about getting people out of their cars, it should invest in our public transport network, introduce free fares for all children and young people, and provide the funding now. It is there. There are billions in surplus for more reliable and frequent bus, rail and metro services. The Government should give the NTA the money now to kick-start Metro West and the Luas to Tyrrelstown through Dunsink lands, and to ensure Dublin Bus has the funds to get more buses on the road. We all know we cannot continue to keep filling our roads with cars. The M50 is at capacity. The Government has been told this for the past year. Nothing more can be done with it. All of us here are asking the Government to give people a genuine opportunity to get out of their cars by investing in a fast, reliable, efficient and cheap public transport system.

I strongly support this motion. The planned hike in public transport fares is nothing less than a slap in the face to ordinary workers and families throughout the country. These workers and families are already being squeezed to the limit due to the continuous failure of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Governments to combat the cost-of-living crisis. When Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael hike fares, they are penalising those who are simply trying to get to work in town or attend appointments. It is an insult to tell people in rural areas to switch to public transport to help to save the environment while the Government chips away at existing routes. This year, the Expressway 4 bus route has been massively reduced, forcing scores of people back into their cars. I walk around Dublin and all I see is an endless selection of buses and trains, but when I go home to south Kilkenny, there is no bus to Kilkenny city. Scores of families cannot even get access to a bus to school. All we hear from Fianna Fáil is about all the new services for Dublin, but what about the rest of the State? At Kilkenny city train station, people with mobility issues struggle to access the platform. For years, they have campaigned for the lift at MacDonagh Station to be opened. The lift there was handed over 19 years ago, and for 19 years it has been closed to the public. The Government cannot even open an elevator in Kilkenny, but it wants everybody to pay more. For how long have we had to listen to the Government telling people to get out of their cars and use public transport? It is punishing people for doing so. For years, Sinn Féin has pushed for affordable and accessible public transport. We should be here talking about expanding services, reducing costs and making public transport the easiest and most affordable option for everybody, but instead we are here opposing the Government's price increases for a substandard service. I do not know about the Minister of State but people come to me regularly telling me about the cost-of-living crisis, and surely to God they are coming to members of the Government as well. They should open their eyes and see what is going on here. People cannot afford to pay more. It is as simple as that.

I thank the Social Democrats and Deputy Farrelly for bring this motion forward. I also welcome the commuter coalitions from across the country and thank them for their vital advocacy work for public transport across the country. The Labour Party will of course be supporting today's motion. This week, the Minister is not with us because he has his climate hat on and is leading the EU delegation at COP31. I am sure the Minister is going to talk to delegates there about Ireland's climate ambition, about delivery, about how seriously our Government takes the climate crisis and about the actions required to mitigate its impacts. Blah, blah, blah. The Minister can wax lyrical all he wants on the international stage about Ireland's commitment to positive climate action. The reality at home is not only that he and this Government are failing, but that they are actively undermining the efforts to reach our climate targets. The fare increase is just one example.

Last week, the Labour Party released its climate scorecard. This is a comprehensive analysis of Government climate commitments made since 2020. When Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil entered into a coalition with the Green Party in 2020, the programme for Government made 148 commitments relating to the climate and environment in its Green New Deal section. Six years on, 60% of those commitments remain undelivered, with many outright reneged on. Some 78% of priority recommendations on climate and the environment made by bodies like the Climate Change Advisory Council, the SEAI, the European Commission and the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss have been ignored by the Government. We know that transport accounts for roughly one fifth of our emissions. It is a sector where we have been failing for years. Emissions have effectively been stuck, not falling. The first carbon budget for transport was exceeded. The SEAI has told us that since September of last year, the sector has effectively been suspending the allocation it was given for the period from 2026 to 2030. The second budget is only 37 million tonnes, and we started that period already in deficit. Any overshoot of the carbon budget is carried forward and deducted from what we have left. This means that every tonne we fail to cut now makes the next cut harder and more expensive.

The EPA projects that even under a "with additional measures" scenario, we will only reach about half of our 2030 emissions reduction targets in the transport sector. What do we do about it? The answer is not some great mystery. It is the same answer that every serious analysis has given for years: avoid, shift and improve. The shift is the part where public transport does the work. When a person leaves the car at home and takes the bus, it is the most direct climate action our transport system can deliver. We should be rewarding that choice, but what does the Government do? It makes it more difficult for people to use sustainable transport. From January, the NTA will increase adult fares by an average of 15%, and in some places the rises will be far higher. This is absolutely ludicrous. We know the impact this decision will have. The NTA has told the Joint Committee on Transport that higher fares will mean fewer people using public transport. Where will they go? They will go back to their cars. They will go onto the motorways that are already full and into the city centres that are already clogged. This policy will increase emissions and increase congestion on our roads, and it will do both on purpose. Anyone who knows about and cares about public transport, climate or quality of life is baffled by this decision.

The only way that this could possibly make sense, in the context of a cost-of-living crisis, extremely healthy public finances and a climate crisis, is if the Government is actively trying to drive down numbers on public transport because of the massive capacity constraints we are currently seeing on our train and bus routes. This must be seen as an acceptance by this Government of its own failures to add capacity to our public transport routes.

We all know the pressures that our public transport system is under. Deputies from across the country have spoken about it. My colleague, Deputy Wall, has been to the fore in highlighting the dangerous overcrowding on commuter rail journeys from Kildare to Dublin. It is happening across the country. There has been a sustained failure over decades to invest in more buses, train carriages, lines and routes. Now, when people want to use public transport, the Government is either unable or unwilling to respond by providing the necessary extra capacity so it puts the fares up to help to manage the issue. This same Government has been able to find €1.2 billion to cut excise duty to keep fossil fuels cheaper, but we cannot find the €70 million it would cost to keep public transport fares down.

It is hard to think of a policy more perfectly designed to move people in the wrong direction. It is anti-climate and anti-worker. The people bearing the cost of this decision will be young workers on modest wages, students, people in commuter towns with no alternative, who will see their travel bills jump, and people in Dublin, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, where fares are being restructured upwards. If we want people outside the cities and in rural communities to leave their cars behind, we need services that are frequent, affordable and reliable. Higher fares push in the opposite direction.

Government backbenchers have expressed their concern about these fare hikes in committee and on social media. If that concern is genuine, they should put their money where their mouths are and stop the crocodile tears. They have a vote and should use it to support this motion.

The Labour Party's position is clear. We want these increases stopped. We want public transport and active travel funded as the essential services they are. Rather than hiking prices on public transport users, we want to move towards free public transport, starting with students and young people, because this is part of the society that we want to build. This is what people should be able to expect as a basic. It is where our climate commitments tell us we have to go.

I thank the Social Democrats for bringing forward this important motion. I want to speak to the issue not because I am a public transport user but because I have received hundreds of messages, with pictures, examples of which I hold in my hand, from my constituents in Dublin Fingal West, particularly around the issue of overcrowding. I want to put on record some of the issues they have sent to me and some of their experiences regarding their journeys on public transport.

Increased transport fees in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis is not a good look. Is the Government listening to people who are already put to the pins of their collars, week to week? Let me tell the Minister of State some of the experiences that my constituents have shared with me. The 33X and 101X bus routes are overcrowded with people sitting on floors and stairs. There are disabled people who are struggling to access services and people are regularly refused boarding because buses are already full.

Rush and Lusk train station is not in Rush and is not in Lusk. That has become a mantra for me in this Chamber. I have raised the issue repeatedly. The bus timetables do not sync with the train timetable. Commuters are forced to drive, but there is no car parking at 7.30 a.m.

I witnessed a passenger faint right next to me. Councillor Mark Boland provided the first aid that day. I have had two more reports in the past two weeks of other fainters, which delays trains and delays people getting to work. People are left waiting for a second or third train because there is simply no room, particularly on the recent truncated trains, as my colleagues from Sinn Féin and Fine Gael experienced yesterday.

Checking the TFI app has become a way of life because buses disappear. The bus services do not properly accommodate getting students to St. Joseph's Secondary School on time to start school in the morning. The last two trains in the evenings do not sync with the bus timetable at Rush and Lusk train station, which means people either have to walk the 30 or 40 minutes to either town or get a taxi, which costs €15 or €20. That is just getting to and from work. Buses are cancelled due to congestion. In the middle of this travel chaos, the Government thinks that increasing fares is acceptable on a transport system that is increasingly creaking at the seams.

Public transport should be a public service and not a financial burden. My constituents are not asking for luxury. They are looking for a service on which they can travel safely and get to work for a fare they can afford.

I received a message this morning. My correspondent told me that they are on more money than ever before but they are scrounging every week to make it to Friday. An unexpected bill, they told me, does not mean dipping into savings or cutting back on a few luxuries, but means going without lunch because they need to ensure they have enough money to top up their Leap card. Their weekly food bill is over €300. There are no luxuries because there simply is not the money. Their health insurance is due in January and they are genuinely having to question whether they can afford the €200 per month. Their childcare cost has increased because their provider has pulled out of core funding, which is a considerable issue in Dublin Fingal West. My correspondent asked what is their reward for all of that. They do not get a seat on the train. They barely get a hand-hold on the train. They are physically crushed against the door because apparently the basic dignity of a safe, comfortable journey to work is too much to expect. The Government now wants them to pay more for the privilege.

I ask the Minister of State what is going on. The reality is that so many people are one unexpected bill away from a crisis. I am asking the Minister of State to do the right thing. Reverse the hikes and do better for the people who are just looking for a bloody break.

I thank the Social Democrats for bringing forward this motion. The proposed increase of 15% to fares, with some rising by as much as 30% next year, is a deeply disappointing backwards step. People cannot afford these additional daily costs. It is unacceptable that passengers have to pay significantly more for services that are already falling short, especially when there is no commitment to long-overdue investment and improvements needed to justify the increases.

Donegal is a prime example. There is still no rail network in the county. We once had one. Everything was taken out of the county and nothing was put back. The county is completely forgotten and neglected when it comes to public transport and essential infrastructure. From the lack of gas connections and the lack of reliable broadband to poor roads, electricity and water infrastructure, the county is constantly being left behind. When it comes to investment and development, people in Donegal rely heavily on buses. When you are in rural Donegal, you have to rely on one bus per day to take you to a connecting town. Otherwise, you will have to take a car. Particularly in Letterkenny, the traffic is chronic.

I have been contacted many times by people who have been left stranded on the side of the road for hours because their buses did not come and they could not get into college or work in time. That is the reality on the ground for people in Donegal. It is completely unacceptable.

I will share one example of how we have been neglected. My children go to college and I am contacted by numerous parents. If they miss the bus in the morning or the bus does not show up, they cannot get in. They have to try to scramble to get a lift. This is happening in every small town outside the urban areas in Donegal. People are neglected and forgotten. It has been going on for years. We need to get a grip on this issue and put proper bus services in place for rural Ireland.

For years, "get out of your cars and use public transport" has been the mantra of this Government and previous Governments. These fare increases drive the public in the opposite direction. It is simply madness. An affordable and reliable public transport service is needed to deal with daily living and the cost-of-living crisis, to ease traffic congestion and reduce carbon emissions, and to simply do the normal things, such as going to work and college, attending hospital appointments and doing the shopping. These increases, which are 15% or even as high as 30% or 35% in some cases, run counter to all accepted public transport and climate change initiatives. Other European countries are moving in the opposite direction, which is to reduce fares and even to provide free public transport. These fare increases are happening at a time of inadequate services, inadequate facilities and overcrowding on trains and buses. The travelling public are being asked to pay more for less. These increases should and must be stopped.

As I have done in the past, I highlight the unacceptable situation at Clonmel Railway Station, which is a hub for trains and Bus Éireann buses.

Large numbers of people wait there for connecting trains and buses. They wait outside the station in all weather - hail, rain and shine - while the station building remains closed. There is no access whatsoever to services there, including toilets, rest rooms or waiting areas. I have raised this issue repeatedly. I am told that internal works are eventually going to be done to provide a passenger waiting area, accessible toilets and changing areas and staff facilities. However, this will not happen until 2028. This is a very minor job in an existing building and should be commenced immediately. I ask the Minister of State to intervene with the NTA and Iarnród Éireann to ensure that happens.

I thank the Social Democrats for bringing forward this excellent motion. The arguments for low-cost and free public transport are unanswerable. This would be a win for climate, a win for the cost of living, a win in reducing traffic congestion and a win for general quality of life. A government that cared about any of those issues would not be increasing fares during a climate and cost-of-living crisis. This Government knows, because the NTA has told it, that increasing fares will reduce public transport use. That is going to mean worse traffic jams. Everyone who is stuck in their cars for hours watching their life slip away day by day should thank Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael because they are the ones that knowingly make choices that make it worse.

I wish to introduce an important fact into the debate. The NTA has told the Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member, that in all cases the operating cost per passenger is lower in 2025 than the 2019 equivalent figure. For city buses, the cost per passenger fell from €2.08 in 2019 money to €1.91 in 2025, which is an 8% drop. For commuter rail, it fell from €4.15 per journey to €3.80, which is an 8.4% drop. For intercity, it fell from €17.09 to €14.48, a whopping 15% drop. However, we know now thanks to a freedom of information request that the Government decided to increase fares by up to 25% in October 2025. It was a Government decision, not an NTA one, so we can stop pretending it is the NTA's fault. Nobody should be fooled. Even allowing for increases in fuel prices, which are partially offset by the VAT reduction and the electrification of buses, the Government cannot say it is increasing fares because of rising costs. It is increasing fares because it wants passengers to pay a bigger share of the overall cost of public transport. They are the passengers who are doing everyone else a favour by reducing pollution, traffic congestion and carbon emissions. The NTA tells us the reason for the drop in operating costs per passenger is growth in passenger numbers but the Government is increasing fares in the knowledge that this will cause passenger numbers to fall. Why is this? Maybe it is because the services are so hopelessly overcrowded and the Government has no plans to address that, so it wants to drive people out of public transport to reduce demand.

The final thing to say is that this can still be stopped. I encourage the campaigning and organising to continue. We have until January. We can stop this outrageous increase.

I thank Deputy Farrelly for bringing forward this motion and the commuter groups for their ongoing pressure on this issue. Since this fare rise was announced, the mantra we have heard from the Government is that commuters who use bus and trains have a choice between one of two things. They can have affordable fares or they can have more and more frequent services but they cannot have both, according to this Government. The message we have to send from this Chamber is that is not true. This is a political choice Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have made. It is possible to reduce fares, make them more affordable and increase services. That was done, led by the Green Party, in the last Government. We cut public transport fares for everybody by 20%. We introduced the young adult travel card and we got the finance in place for under-nines to go free. At the same time, we increased bus services. There were 56 new or enhanced bus services in 2024 and in 2023 there were 85. It is therefore possible to make life more affordable for commuters and to improve services if the political choice is made and the political will is there, but it is not there with this particular Government. To add insult to injury, this Government has decided to impose these significant fare increases, which are well ahead of inflation, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis in January when everyone is going to be struggling at best. The only commitment or promise we have from this Government is that it will come back again in January 2028 and January 2029 with more fare demands.

Freedom of information requests went in about this decision. When it was announced, Darragh O'Brien told us that this was about putting fares on a sustainable basis. That is not the case. This is about is about getting Jack Chambers and the Department of public expenditure off Darragh O'Brien's back. We know that clearly from the freedom of information requests that came out there. This is a political decision and a political choice. It is a money-saving choice. It has nothing to do with sustainability. It has nothing to do with the roll-out of new services next year. It can be reversed and there is going to be huge anger come January when commuters see the very significant hit they are taking in their pockets.

The fare increase is a very unfair one. Last night we were fighting in relation to the tolls. Today we are discussing fares for people who are trying to go to work every day of the week, getting up early in the morning, especially the working person, and paying these exorbitant amounts for fuel. In €100 of petrol, €45 is already tax. This is a tax-hungry Government and there is no doubt about that. It wants to hit people for the little bit of transport they are getting in the morning and sometimes in the evening. It could be €5.20 for people coming in from an area like Bray for a return ticket.

At the same time as that, there is no great delivery of the service either. I know it well from my own area because of the many tenders that were put out to start new routes last year that collapsed because there was no money. That was a nicely held secret by the Government all year but apparently there is money since the budget, so I would like to know about the Kealkill-Bantry-Macroom route. Maybe the Minister of State can tell me whether that is open. The people of Kealkill have no transport service, which is terribly unfair. I have attended meetings there and communicated with people back and forth. What about the tender that was put out for Clonakilty, Timoleague, Grange and all that area down there, including Barryroe? There was a tender put out there a year or a year and a half ago. Nothing happened. Is that transport service now going to be resurrected? Is it going to be run?

We might move to the train service we do not have in west Cork. There is no connectivity there. Connecting Ireland is not connecting Ireland when it is not connected. I do not know when we are ever going to come to the stage that we might be connected. A train service came to Schull in the 1850s but in 2026 you have to travel as far as Cork, which is 70 or 80 miles away, to get a train. There is something wrong somewhere. The Minister of State could tell me this is never going to happen. I could accept that, although I do not like the thought of accepting it. Certainly, bus connectivity from west Cork to the train station should be a priority. West Cork Connect has put forward very workable solutions in that regard, but unfortunately they are falling on deaf ears. The problem sometimes is that the main government bodies like the NTA or TII - there are so many of them, lord God, that you would want an instruction book on who is in charge of what - are afraid of something. I do not know what they are afraid of. It is as if they are in competition with the private operators instead of saying that if those operators can do it, let them put a plan together and get it across the line. It has been put to the relevant bodies but it has been stalled, looked at and not looked at. It is not going to happen, again because there is a real hunger out there not to connect Ireland.

Ah no.

There is. I can show the Minister of State plenty of places that are not connected. This is one example. Surely to God there should not be a place in any part of Europe that is 80 to 90 miles of roadway from the nearest train. At one time, the railways travelled to Bantry on a separate route and to Schull on another route. If we could do it in 1850, there is something really wrong when we cannot even bring it to Bandon in 2026. The Taoiseach has a lot of lovely plans for Cork - I have no issue with that; it is brilliant, because Cork needs it - but he has no plans for connectivity for west Cork.

We do not have passing bays on the roads. We do not have bypasses being funded. It is one problem on top of the other. The other thing I do not like is the NTA's attitude - I hate to use the word "attitude" - but it is not listening to solutions that could be made; small-time solutions. I look at areas like Drinagh and Caheragh that have an opportunity to be connected by a transport service because there is a bus travelling close by but it will not take in that little bit extra. It is as if to say, "This is the way it is". Some collar-tie pencil pusher is pushing this in Dublin but does not understand how west Cork works. Somebody may have to wait an extra five or ten minutes because a service is provided in a place like Drinagh or Caheragh. We should use the existing service not put in a new service at a huge extra cost. I do not understand some of the stuff that goes on. There is a bus coming from Castletownbere. Could it not slip into Kealkill and take people from there into Bantry? Would it put ten or 15 minutes on the whole journey? We asked that a bus could go from Castletownsend on to the loop, where it would take in a whole load of extra people but it was refused. Again, we asked for a loop from the Mizen, where I live, taking not one extra minute but it could take ten or 12 extra customers but we were not listened to. I am on the board. I am a volunteer. I never took a brown cent for being on that board. We want to deliver but we are not being given that opportunity. The NTA has its door shut to me, as a public representative, and to everybody else. It is as if it is saying, "We make a decision. You listen to us and scratch your - I am sorry - you know what, after that." That is not good enough. It needs to work with the people. If small changes could be made, maybe they could save the State a fortune in money while, at the same time, deliver a service which would be welcome.

Gabhaim míle buíochas leis na Social Democrats mar gheall ar an rún seo freisin. What does the Minister of State have against commuters? In every direction the Government takes there seems to be an attack on commuters. Hundreds of thousands of commuters are currently living in a commuter hell and being assaulted with never-ending congestion and prices in terms of their daily commute. If we use petrol or diesel, when we go to the petrol station and put 100 quid in the tank, €45 of that will go to the Government in tax. If we use the motorways, the Government has hiked up the tolls yet again, even for tolls that the Government owns that have been bought and paid for. If we use an electric car, we are actually being charged the highest electricity prices on the planet. Indeed, if we charge on the street, we are likely to get a charge that is actually more than the cost of petrol. The congestion is incredible. I came up from Navan yesterday on the M3. It took two hours to travel from Navan to Dublin yesterday morning. It regularly takes between three and four hours for a return journey from anywhere in the commuter belt into Dublin. Could the Minister of State just listen to this for a second? I know he has lots of notes in front of him but this is important and I want him to understand this.

Stop being patronising.

Currently, the M50 is a car park for most of the day. It is at full capacity. One of the solutions to that is to take people from counties like Meath on a rail line into the county. There are 80,000 commuters in Meath. Some 60,000 of those use a car to get into Dublin every day. The Minister of State could have a material effect on all of the commuters in that region by building the Navan to Dublin rail line. The Navan to Dublin rail line was built in three years with picks and shovels in the 1860s. The current phase was started in 1994 and it will not be complete by 2036. That means if a person started work in 1994, they will be retired before it is built. The key thing is that it does not have a start date before 2030. It does not have a ring-fenced fund before 2030. I am imploring and begging the Minister of State at this stage to bring the billed start date for the Navan to Dublin rail line to before 2030 and do hundreds of thousands of people in the commuter belt a massive favour? His decision could have a material effect on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, never mind climate change and all the costs associated with that. We cannot go on with the situation as currently outlined. Tomorrow, we have the outlining of the consultation stage of the rail line project but it is moving at glacial speed. I urge the Minister of State not to be a passenger on this bus but to be the driver of the bus. He should not just wait for the NTA to make decisions; he should make the decision.

I joked before that it was a cunning plan by the Minister to push fare prices up to keep demand down, with so many overcrowded buses and trains. However, it is no joke for the people who are suffering as a result of this collective incompetence. It makes no sense whatsoever to hike public transport costs in a time of climate crisis, when costs are rising everywhere, and when some people have no alternative to public transport.

At the same time, the Minister is restricting car parking in new developments in my constituency - Dublin Mid-West, in places like Saggart, Seven Mills, Adamstown and Kilcarbery - ostensibly to encourage people to use a transport service that does not exist. There are people fainting on trains in my area and buses that are either full to the brim or cancelled without warning. The Minister is confusing car ownership with car usage. Of course, the people in social housing get even fewer spaces. Going by Simon Harris's comments, none of these people work, none of them have kids that need access to schools and childcare, and none of them have relatives that visit. We have had the media reports of people regretting moving to these areas because of the services not being in place. Between the Opposition and the Government parties, they have made a mess of my constituency. When I was mayor, along with a group of Independents, we tabled over 350 motions to the Clonburris strategic development zone, SDZ, to try to tie in housing with facilities, housing with train stations opening and housing with bus services tied in. It was voted down multiple times, and the behaviour of some councillors was woefully abusive. One would think that we would learn given all the capacity constraints we have now but no, in the recent rezonings, every single rezoning in Lucan, Clondalkin and Saggart has had no tie-in with facilities and infrastructure. I said it ten or 15 years ago, that these problems were going to happen. Now they are going to happen in another ten or 15 years because of bad planning.

I am glad to get the opportunity to say a few words about the rising costs. A lot of people who use public transport on a constant basis are very worried about the proposed increases and it is giving them great concern. It is at times like this that we certainly appreciate free transport for those people with disabilities and the elderly people who can travel free and use their passes to travel where they want. The Ministers and the Governments that put this system in place in the past deserve continuous credit for it and for having the foresight to understand what was needed into the future. I make no bones about it: the Taoiseach, Charlie Haughey, played a big role at the start of that to ensure that many people would have free transport. We appreciate the public transport that we have. As I said, many people are worried about the increased cost but a lot of people are worried also who do not have transport. Many parts of rural Kerry still do not have public transport. While a lot of areas do, there are a lot of rural places that are very isolated that need a better service. I refer to places like the Black Valley, Beaufort, places in east Kerry, Shrone and rural places like Aunaskirtaun. We need to have some kind of a public transport system in those places as well.

The other matter when we are talking about transport is the lack of taxis. There is certainly a deficit of taxis in rural villages like Kilgarvan, Kenmare, Gneevgullia, Scartaglin, Barraduff and Rathmore. While there are a few constant operators who are very greatly appreciated, there are times that you cannot get a taxi in any one of these places. The other thing is that it is taking so long for people to get licensed and to get on the road. It is very cumbersome and that needs to be addressed as well because it is putting off a lot of people who might be interested in providing a service and trying to make a bit of a living for themselves. They see that it is taking too long and they are going in a different direction. In rural places and centres, during the week there are no taxis to be had to get in or out of these places. Not to have some form of public transport is a big disadvantage to a local pub, meetings or anything that is taking place.

While the Minister of State sitting there, I wish to raise a matter I have raised several times. A lot of people come by rail to Killarney. A lot of people leave Killarney on buses. It is a sad reflection that the two stations - the railway station and the bus station - are not connected in Killarney. A person cannot cross a bridge to get from the train station to the bus station. They have to go down around past the Great Southern Hotel and up the Fair Hill before they can get into the bus station. That proposed bridge was on a programme but we have been told that it has been dropped because it is too expensive. The Lord God Almighty, given the number of tourists and people who come from the train station, and we appreciate them coming, to send them around the block with luggage, cases and all their stuff so they can get on a bus is unfair and it has to be addressed. The Government has money for a lot of things. I am not hitting out at the Minister of State but I am telling him that this will have to be addressed. It has to be put on a programme again because we have been told that it has been completely wiped off the list to be done. That is something that is very important. Again, I said-----

Deputy-----

How much time do I have?

You had five minutes.

Sure, the other fella never came.

Is the Deputy going to use his time?

I will say a few more bits and I will go away then.

Okay. Go ahead.

We have a lot of public transport and we appreciate it. However, the people who do not have it are still suffering. We need to expand it.

There are very big coaches and mid-sized coaches. We have the biggest one going through Kilgarvan. Two of them meet sometimes at the bad turn in the middle of the village. They are having fierce difficulty passing one another. Maybe, a size down from the largest one would help if that could be managed. I am sure the buses are not that full. We appreciate the consistency of the times. They are doing a great job. It would be easier for drivers if we could have a size down from the bigger coach. This would not be a very small one or anything like that but just a size down from the very large one. It would be common sense.

Gabhaim fíorbhuíochas le gach Ball a bhí páirteach sa díospóireacht tábhachtach agus iontach seo. Bhí mé ag éisteacht le tuairimí na mBall. I thank Deputy Farrelly for bringing the motion before the House. To be fair, I have taken many of the Deputy's Topical Issue debates. He has been a long-time advocate of public transport since he came into the House. The Deputy's bona fides are not questioned at all. I wish to make that comment at the beginning because I know where the Deputy is coming from. To be fair, he has been very consistent.

All of us in the House share a common position. We want to see public transport available and to be accessible, reliable and improved for all people who use public transport. As a Minister of State in the Department with responsibility for rural transport - and I will speak to that in a minute - it is important that the conversation and the debate that we have here recognise that there are challenges. I am not immune or removed from reality. I heard Deputy Gibney's remarks, who I have great respect for, but I live in the real world. I do not need her to tell me about the cost of living. She does not need to tell me about what is happening in my constituency. I am out and about every day. I am an ordinary person; I am a gnáthdhuine. I walk around my people. I live among my people, and I know what is happening.

The Minister of State’s policies do not seem to.

Bhí mé ag éisteacht leat. Do not tell me that I do not know because I do know. I understand full well. I use the public transport in Cork city and I can speak to that too.

The fundamentals are that for a lot of people if we talk to them, it is that ghost bus that we speak about and that real-time information that is paused or not right or it is the bus that does not turn up. To be fair to the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, we are committed to that public transport investment and that sustainability of the public transport system. I pay tribute to the Dublin Commuter Coalition for its great work and I thank it. It is not about advocacy. It is about putting forward a policy and plan. I fully understand the criticisms. I get it. I have an issue in my own area where we need to see an enhanced connectivity piece in terms of the Ballinora Waterfall-Bishopstown area. Deputy Gogarty is right. All of us can reflect on us. Sometimes, we do not have that joined up thinking approach that we need to have. It mystifies me as to why we cannot do that, particularly when we have council development plans and the national development plan. We all know and recognise what is needed.

Deputy Gibney referenced the direction of travel. We all want to move in that direction where we have a more reliable and people-centred system and a public transport system that is working. By and large, it is working. If we look at the volume of people using it and the number availing of it, it speaks to it. This is not a deflection point but I was on holidays this year in a particular part of America and the public transport system was congested. If I closed my eyes and listened to some of the comments here, I saw that happening in the city that I was in. Trains were full and the information was not right. That is an example. The Government is committed to funding. The budget shows that increase. As the Minister of State with responsibility for rural transport, I am ambitious to see more people using our public transport. I refer the Deputies to rural transport and to look at the success of it. More and more people are using it. Passenger numbers and routes are being increased. To that end, with other Ministers, I am meeting with the NTA to discuss 2027. I am meeting the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and Minister of State, Deputy Canney, regarding a plan around Connecting Ireland for 2027.

To Deputy Healy-Rae's point regarding the rural hackneys, I changed the rules to make it easier to have more rural hackneys in rural Ireland. There was not a word about that from the Deputy today. He mentioned the bridge in Killarney. That is a matter that is to be taken up with Kerry County Council and Irish Rail.

I do not for one second think that everything is perfect. It is not. As the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, said in his contribution, service availability, frequency, reliable and the overall service plus the fares have the impact. What we want to see and what I have spoken to is that strong sustainable foundation that will deliver new and enhanced public transport services. The importance of BusConnects is critical. Deputy Rice is here in the Chamber. We have seen the success of the light rail in terms of commuter rail in Cork with Cork, Midleton, Glounthaune, Cobh and Mallow. New stations are being opened to deliver and connect more people. It is fact.

Deputy Collins spoke about west Cork. I have not had one request from the West Cork Connect group for a meeting. I hope Deputy Rice will testify. The Deputy and I are fairly available in Cork. We are not living in an ivory tower. I am around and available. I was in west Cork over the summer, and I met Deputy Collins in Schull. To be fair, let us have a real conservation. We all regret and can all speak to the closure of the west Cork railway line back in the 1960s and as to why it happened. What would the cost be of a west Cork rail today? What is the cost of the Cork and Youghal line? I am all in favour of having the Cork and Youghal line developed.

I heard Deputy Quaide's contribution. I would like to see the Cork to Youghal line or the Midleton to Youghal line being reopened but what is the cost? Who pays for that?

The State.

I heard Deputy Quaide's point.

I am sure he will agree with me that the Midleton-Cobh-Cork line he is on is phenomenal and a great success. We were told 20 years ago it would not happen, but it has. I heard his comments and will take them back to the relevant people.

We want to strengthen transport connectivity not just for the urban commuters referenced by Deputies, but also for rural Ireland. Deputy Ward spoke about Donegal, which has one of the best rural transport services in the country, but we did not hear about that today. Rural Link providers are doing a phenomenal job. Next year, I want to see the continued expansion of Local Link throughout the country. The towns bus programme shows that public transport can be a success. There is evidence last year from the first ever smart demand responsive transport pilot in Achill, Killarney and Limerick city. Notwithstanding the challenges we face, working with the NTA we can ensure that we can deliver for people.

I have heard the concerns and remarks. We all subscribe to the premise of affordable fees. The fare increase that has been proposed is about putting the financial stability of the public transport system in place and continued investment. I do not want to strike a note of discord because I am fundamentally on the same page as Deputy Farrelly, but nobody has spoken about how we will pay for it.

We do.

I am not going to have a row, but let us live in the real world. The Government has increased the pot of money for the Department. We do not have money up the wazoo to spend on everything. We have made choices. We are making the choice to improve the electrification of the fleet, connect more people, improve commuter rail, the Luas for Cork and MetroLink.

Deputies have spoken about the cost of living. The Government has intervened repeatedly to support and assist people, as it should. I understand that affordability is a key priority, but we must achieve balance in the terms of the need for service improvement, expanding the network, enhancing reliability and providing the better public transport we all want. I pay tribute to the men and women who work in our public transport system because they do phenomenal work.

There is more that unites us than divides us. I want more people to be connected and a better offering and better public transport system. I look forward to working with everybody, in particular the NTA, which is the body determining the decisions, to ensure that our public transport system delivers more people affordable, on-time and reliable services with certainty.

The Minister of State is a gas man. He has said he is of the people and in touch with the people. The move the Government is making is out of touch and is putting more strain on those families he understands are under strain due to the cost of living. This move does not understand those people. His argument is that money does not grow on trees yet the Government has a massive tax surplus, running into hundreds of billions of euro. It is gas and the Minister of State is a gas man coming to the House to debate that.

He fundamentally agreed with us but his actions and those of the Government do not show that. These fare increases put more pressure on people. He referenced some facts, and that is a fact. From January, adult fares will increase by an average of 15%. In my constituency, Dublin Central, short fares will increase by 33%, which is another fact. The Minister of State wants to talk about facts. That is a third more for the same journey on a bus and there is the same uncertainty about whether the bus will turn up on time. We hear about ghost buses across my constituency and the country. Someone taking two short journeys a day, five days a week, will have another fiver taken out of their pocket. The Minister of State knows it is not just about a fiver. People are under pressure. Over 48 weeks, the fare increase will result in an increase of €240. The Government and Minister of State, a normal person in touch with the people, might consider that a small amount, but for some people it is a significant amount and affects putting food on the table or choosing what bill to pay next.

Living in the city does not mean people can simply walk everywhere. For older people, people with disabilities, parents with young children and someone coming home after a long shift, walking is simply not an option in some places. These are essential journeys and people should be able to afford them.

The Government is asking people to pay more for journeys they are already not getting enough out of. In my constituency, when a couple of bus stops, including the North Strand bus stop, were removed, residents had to start a local campaign for months to fight for a bus stop to come back, in an area where high numbers of people with disabilities and people over 65 are registered. I know that because I live there. There was zero consultation from the NTA on this.

Regarding Home Farm Road, the term "shambles" simply does not cover the plan that has been put in place up there. There are different road layouts, which send buses down small pedestrian roads where schools are located. We are talking about increasing fares. It is a merry-go-round with the NTA at the best of times. We know the demand for public transport has grown, with over 363 million journeys in 2025. It is a fact that that is a good thing but that should be the reason to invest further, improve services and build on that progress. Instead, the Government is putting up another barrier for people using public transport.

The NTA acknowledges that a 10% increase will lead to a 3% fall in passenger numbers. The Minister of State has said he is a normal person who is in touch with the people. This move is not in touch with how people are living and the cost-of-living crisis.

I missed the full debate. I was chairing a health committee meeting but I did catch some of the debate and some of the Minister of State's response. He will appreciate my example, being from Cork. I was going to town on Saturday to catch the Kingfishr gig, and the sign at my local bus stop said it would be there in three minutes. I ran to the bus stop and waited, where the sign said it would be there in five minutes but then the bus just disappeared. The sign told me the next bus would be in 25 minutes, but that then got delayed. I would have walked to town in the time that I would have been waiting at that bus stop. That is not a privilege other people have, as Deputy Ennis just said.

There are real issues. The Minister of State will be aware of the frustration because we have the same constituents. The real issue in Cork is that the bus fares have already increased by 26% this year. That is going to be felt further across the county and into other services. A constituent of mine and the Minister of State emailed me recently me to say that Cork city bus users have felt the pinch since June when fare increases went up, and that is now set to spread to rail services. This is all happening against the backdrop of further delays to the Cork Luas project and the lack of progress on BusConnects. This decision is tone deaf. We cannot keep asking people to pay more while receiving less. These fare increases are also being implemented during one of the worst cost-of-living crises this country has seen, but it is also completely disconnected from our climate goals.

Almost every day a constituent contacts me regarding public transport. I sit here in the Dáil and listen to people who are struggling to pay their rent and bills and to put food on the table. Many of those who are struggling will have waited today in the rain at bus or train stops, for buses to turn up that are overcrowded, as we saw last week on "Prime Time".

Constituents will often delay raising issues regarding buses being cancelled or delayed. It was reported recently that 36% of Cork city buses operated off schedule during the first half of the year, showing up late or leaving earlier than timetabled. This is one third of services, and now people are being asked to pay more. Someone from Cork said to me recently that it is just another price hike. Everything else is a price hike so why not this too?

People are incredibly frustrated about the rising cost of public transport. but they are also worried about the climate. The Minister of State asked how we are going to pay for this. We seem to have plenty of money to pay for climate-related fines. We need to address this to have a real transition away from fossil fuels. The fare increases are a stark contrast to our climate targets. We need to get people using public transport. People feel they cannot use it because it is unreliable and costs are increasing. Therefore, it is crucially important that these hikes are reversed and that we meet our climate targets by providing people with access to affordable quality public transport.

I thank the Minister of State for his response and colleagues across the House for their contributions on the debate on public transport fare increases. If we are ever wondering about the cost of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil doing business with the Regional Independents, it is on issues like this that it manifests.

Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party were record-breakers in terms of public transport costs and public transport users. As soon as we said goodbye to the Green Party in that Government and welcomed the regional Independents, who have championed tar, tar and tar - that populist narrative of really local issues - the Government has collectively taken its foot off the gas when it comes to the real priority, which should be moving people, not moving cars.

Ultimately, we should not be debating whether public transport costs are going up. We should actually be congratulating the Government on driving those prices down. If we took our climate obligations seriously at all, we would never look at raising public transport prices. Actually, we would ideologically move to one day having free public transport for everybody,-----

Hear, hear.

-----the maximum use of public transport and not giving out and saying that we cannot pay for everything, which is what our Taoiseach said in response to these announcements.

We have heard an awful lot this morning about overcrowding on our public transport network, whether that is on rail or on buses. A legitimate and tangible thing to do from a Government perspective when there are capacity issues is to increase capacity. The illegitimate thing to do when there are capacity issues is to raise the prices to drive people away from using public transport. That is really unacceptable at a time when we should be trying to encourage people towards public transport. We now have a Tánaiste and Minister for Finance who will give out to you if you do not go to work and a Government that is preparing itself to punish you financially for going to work. On 1 January, you will pay more for your bus, your toll, your train and, whichever which way, commuting to work.

Public transport increases will come to about 1.3% of the Department's budget in 2027. The National Transport Authority needed €70 million to sufficiently keep its budget aligned. The Government has put that cost on the end user, even though the Minister of State's Department had an underspend of ring-fenced carbon tax budgets of over €100 million in 2025. The Minister of State has told me that the Government cannot spend everything and asked where it would come up with the money. That is where the money is. It is sitting there and is ready to be used by just changing the subhead from a carbon tax to an NTA budget supplement. That would negate the need for putting this on families.

This Government has taken its eyes off the prize. This is a political choice. This is the Taoiseach, the Minister of State and the wider Government's choice to raise public transport fares. Time and again, it has been the wrong choice. I ask that the Government change its mind today. Reverse this decision and do away with public transport fare increases.

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

I hope Members will join me in offering a warm céad míle fáilte to Senator Deborah O'Neill, who is chairperson of the Australian-Irish parliamentary friendship group. She joins us in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery, accompanied by the Australian ambassador to Ireland, our good friend, Her Excellency Chantelle Taylor. They are here with Deputy James O'Connor, who is the convener of the Australian-Irish friendship group.

Dismantling the triple lock carries the most profound implications for this country for generations to come. The Government's plan to deploy Irish troops without a United Nations mandate is destructive and dangerous. The United Nations mandate is the mechanism that has made Irish peacekeeping so effective over the years. It is the UN mandate that legally defines Irish deployments as bona fide peacekeeping efforts. It is that which ensures conformity with international law. The United Nations mandate frames our peacekeeping work as a military neutral. The UN mandate has protected Irish troops, often in the face of sustained hostility and danger, as they carried out their duties wearing the blue helmet and under the Irish flag. Now, the Government wants to throw all of that away and undo generations of honourable work.

The Government has concocted all sorts of false rationales for its actions, but none of it bears up to scrutiny and the Minister for foreign affairs has now revealed the real motives for its actions: the Government wants to get rid of the triple lock to allow the deployment of Irish soldiers on an EU-led mission to Lebanon. This would not be a peacekeeping mission, but a partisan intervention in one of the most fraught and dangerous parts of our world. The Government wants to change Ireland's role from peacekeeper in Lebanon, where our brave soldiers held the line against illegal Israeli incursion, where they acted as a buffer between parties to the conflict and where they protected civilian life, to instead deploy them as part of an EU mission to act in the interests of Israel in disarming Hezbollah, placing our soldiers as partisans and in the way of danger to advance Israeli interests. This will be a mission led by the very EU governments that actively arm and support Israel's genocide in Palestine.

The Government's plan is to scrap the triple lock and fall into line with Europe's NATO members. That is dangerous and makes a mockery of our neutrality. This is not what the Irish people want or support, in my strong opinion. The Irish people were given not just an assurance, but a solemn guarantee by the parties in government that the triple lock and the United Nations mandate would underwrite our military neutrality, our independent foreign policy and our absolute conformity with international law, and that, crucially, they would avoid any slippery slope for Ireland into European defence arrangements and military adventures. That guarantee was the demand of the Irish people in return for passing the Nice and Lisbon referendums. It was the price demanded by the Irish people for further European integration then and now.

The triple lock was a solemn commitment to the Irish people and now the Government wants to ditch it without the democratic permission of the Irish people. The Government wants to deploy Irish soldiers on a partisan, Israel-friendly mission along with soldiers from the very countries arming Israeli genocide, and to do so without the democratic consent or permission of the Irish people. That is despicable. It the Government is set on this destructive course of action, then the very minimum it must do is seek the permission and democratic consent of the Irish people first and put this question to a referendum.

Hear, hear.

I dtús báire, ní aontaím in aon chor leis an Teachta. Is dochreidte an méid atá ráite aici ar maidin. Níl an Teachta ag insint na fírinne in aon chor. Is uafásach go ndúirt sí anseo inniu go bhfuil muidne ag iarraidh Óglaigh na hÉireann a chur ar an taobh céanna le hIosrael. Tá sé sin dochreidte.

Deputy McDonald is getting more desperate by the day, and she is going low. To endeavour to create the impression and narrative that somehow Irish military personnel would be deployed in favour of Israel in Lebanon is a despicable, outrageous distortion of truth and of the narrative. Sinn Féin seems to think it can get away with falsehoods week after week in relation to a litany of issues.

Ireland has a very proud record of peacekeeping. My party, Fianna Fáil, when in government in the 1960s, began the very first peacekeeping mission. We are very proud of it. Our major role internationally has been defined by the peacekeeping heroics of many generations of Irish soldiers. We want to continue that mission of peacekeeping.

The Deputy talked about a UN mandate. We know the UN Security Council is dysfunctional. Instead of a UN mandate, she is saying it has to have a Russian mandate.

Ah, here.

Russia is on the Security Council.

I did not interrupt Deputy McDonald.

I will deal with this. Deputies should afford the same courtesy to each Member of the House. No interruptions, please.

If we insist on a Security Council mandate in today's world, we are saying we are insisting on a Russian mandate. We know that in Africa, in the Sahel and elsewhere, Russia has deployed the Wagner Group and other groups to manipulate governments, take down governments in Niger and other places and extract the very valuable minerals and resources from those countries. Is that who we want to endorse whether or not we go on a peacekeeping mission? The great republican party opposite believes the United Kingdom should have a veto on whether we participate. We have very good relations with the United Kingdom but I think independent foreign policy should mean we give ourselves greater flexibility in terms of being able to be involved in peacekeeping, monitoring and so on.

In relation to Lebanon, I find it extraordinary that Deputy McDonald would have the brass neck to come in here and say that, somehow, we now want to get involved in supporting Israel. Let us reflect on what has happened. We have been in Lebanon since the 1970s. Who is taking us out of Lebanon? It is the United States and Israel, which did not want the continuation of UNIFIL. We have played a very noble role in Lebanon; yes, as the Deputy said, as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah. By the way, Hezbollah has murdered some of our soldiers in the past. It has been responsible for the killing of Irish soldiers. Do not lose sight of that either. We have been peacekeepers there and we wanted to continue with UNIFIL because the danger with UNIFIL ending is that the eyes and ears of the world will be taken out of southern Lebanon in particular. Why is UNIFIL being stopped? Why are Irish troops coming home in December and the next group that goes will basically be winding up the operation in Lebanon? It is because the Security Council could not and would not sanction the continuation of UNIFIL because of the position of the United State and Israel. That is the fundamental flaw in the Deputy's presentation.

The Taoiseach is very well aware that peacekeeping missions are mandated by the UN, and the UN alone. A European force does not enjoy, nor should it enjoy, that discretion. It is utterly despicable and utterly outrageous that any Irish Government would seek to place Irish soldiers in direct harm's way in a partisan manner in the middle of a complex, protracted and dangerous civil war, explicitly with the mandate to disarm one party to that conflict - in this case, Hezbollah. Yes, Hezbollah has taken Irish soldiers' lives and so, too, has the Israel Defense Forces. Ireland should not be taking Israel's part, particularly at a time when it is executing a genocide of the Palestinian people, and doing the bidding of Israel in Lebanon. It is as simple as that.

Thank you, Deputy, your time is up.

The Taoiseach is convinced by his argument and he has come in and rehearsed it.

We are sticking to our time. The Taoiseach, please.

He should put the question to the people in a referendum.

We will not be placing Irish troops in harm's way in Lebanon, either in disarming Hezbollah or whatever. That is a falsehood. We will not be doing that.

No government has made any decision. No proposal has come to the Government and we have made no decision in relation to it. Either way, there will not be a proposal coming forward to the Government that we would have any partisan role other than that we would support the Lebanese Government in terms of training and so on because the Lebanese Government-----

That is a contradiction in terms.

-----needs to be strengthened and it needs support. No one has argued against that. I do not know whether Sinn Féin is now against that as well.

Are you not listening to your own Minister for foreign affairs?

We support Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity. Israel is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon and has undermined its capacity to grow and develop. We will not be in any way involved in the false narrative Deputy McDonald has articulated this morning.

It is not a false narrative.

The next speaker is Deputy Hearne. He is on his feet.

The Taoiseach stopped short as his waffle-----

Respect, Deputy.

-----only has certain parameters.

A new report from Deloitte makes for grim reading. It says the Government has no hope of delivering 300,000 homes by 2030. It is going to miss its target by a country mile, falling nearly 140,000 homes short. Instead of delivering homes, the Government prefers spin and empty promises. In a few minutes, the Taoiseach will stand up and say we have turned a corner again and then he will do what he always does, which is look for someone else to blame. Will it be the planning system, the courts, the Opposition or some vulnerable group he and the Tánaiste pick on? I have news for the Taoiseach: the failure is all his and it is devastating the lives of tens of thousands of people across this country.

In the past week alone, I have been contacted by a man in his 60s in my constituency who is living in his car. He is afraid to go into emergency accommodation because, if he does, he fears he will lose his job. Can the Taoiseach imagine being forced to sleep in your car every night as temperatures plummet and having to try to put on a brave face before going to work in the morning? A 29-year-old woman facing eviction from her apartment also contacted me. She has a good job but every day, she said, she wakes up feeling a paralysing sense of dread because she cannot afford the extortionate rents now being charged for new tenancies. She has no hope of being able to buy a home of her own. Another young man in my constituency has spoken of the nightmare of trying to find new rental accommodation. Even finding a room in shared accommodation is almost impossible. The only ones he has seen advertised are now costing €1,400 per month, which is more than half his monthly salary.

This is the reality of the Government's disastrous housing policies: a multigenerational catastrophe that is destroying lives all over the country. In 2020, the median price of a home was €255,000. Today, it is nearly €400,000. Six years of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in government have added €140,000 to the price of a home. That is their big achievement. Is it any wonder that 70% of young people are considering leaving this country because they cannot afford the Ireland that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have created? No matter how hard they work, it is never enough. They cannot afford to move out of home, put down roots in a community or even start a family because the cost of housing and everything else in this country is totally unaffordable.

The Government is following the same failed policies and refusing to treat the housing catastrophe as an emergency. It has refused to ban no-fault evictions, reverse its disastrous rental changes, set up a State construction company and stop investor funds buying up property. Does the Taoiseach accept the Government's target will not be met?

I fundamentally disagree with the Deputy's narrative. Ireland ranks as the fastest in Europe in terms of house construction by a considerable distance. At 7.2 units per 1,000 of population, we are more than double the Europe average of three units and triple the United Kingdom's figure of 2.4. Since 2020, we will by the end of this year have delivered 70,000 social houses alone, close to that and maybe more. Going back to between 2015 and 2020, the number was nearly half that if not even less. That is progress. The Deputy will not acknowledge it because he is in opposition and wants to exploit every crisis as best he can. Importantly, the progress is quite significant, with 36,000 new houses last year. In 2020, we were at 20,000 per annum. We will be increasing that again by the end of 2026.

We have also initiated quite a significant number of reforms, which the Deputy objected to and opposed in every single way. Commencements are up 156% in 2026 versus 2025. A total of 35,400 mortgages were drawn down in the first three quarters of 2026. I went through the social houses built and so on. More importantly, the reforms and the work of the housing activation office have made very significant inroads, with the €1 billion that was allocated to the office, constructing railways and new stations aligning with the provision of thousands and thousands more homes.

In terms of the Deloitte report, it relies on historical planning permission lapse rates and does not adequately capture the impact of current Government interventions, increased construction capacity or the measures being implemented to accelerate delivery.

It applies historical permission lapse rates of 25% to 30% from 2017 to 2020 to current and future delivery. That assumes that past patterns will continue unchanged despite significant changes in the policy, planning and investment environment, changes that, by the way, the Social Democrats substantially or totally objected to, be they the planning reforms, zoning or so on that we have engaged in.

I looked at the disposal of lands at Mooretown in Swords. About 249 affordable and 111 social houses are ready to go, with the tender agreed and everything with the local authority. A Labour Party-led motion, supported by the Deputy's party, was a refusal to give that land over for those houses. That is the hypocrisy they go on with all the time. How can the Deputy get up here and talk about housing delivery but just casually say that, because of who owns a crèche, people will not get access to those affordable or social houses for some time yet? The Deputies are so intent on ideology as opposed to substantial and pragmatic progress.

It is incredible to see the Taoiseach getting worked up over this. It is a pity he is not worked up about the 5,830 children who are in emergency accommodation right now.

Hear, hear.

It is a pity we do not see him getting worked up about the highest number of evictions in this country since the Famine. Not once in his speech did the Taoiseach acknowledge the devastating human impact of this housing crisis on the three cases I raised in my constituency alone, including an elderly person living in their car and a 29-year old being evicted as a result of the measures that the Government brought in.

The Taoiseach talks about the Government's success and affordable housing delivery. It is absolutely pathetic. Just under 600 affordable purchase homes were delivered in the first half of this year. There are half a million adults living in their parental homes. There is a lack of empathy and the Taoiseach is cold in his response. There is a human catastrophe happening right now. These policies of handing public land-----

Thank you Deputy. The Taoiseach to respond.

-----over to private developers is what got us into this crisis in the first place, yet the Government continues with those.

It is very disingenuous and dishonest of the Deputy to say I am cold or not prioritising housing. He knows damn well that I am-----

The Taoiseach stands over so many children being homeless and evicted.

-----and he knows that, since the Government came in two years ago, we have prioritised housing and I continue to prioritise housing. His ideology is what is getting in the way of faster-----

What of the Taoiseach's ideology?

-----delivery in terms of the progression of houses.

Deputy Hearne mentioned individual cases. He did not explain to me why an individual would not go into emergency accommodation.

See? The Taoiseach has no understanding. How can someone go into emergency accommodation-----

No, sorry. Deputy Hearne did not. He simply said that the person would lose a job if the person went into emergency accommodation. Why? How?

That is the reality.

Yes. Absolutely. The Taoiseach is so disconnected-----

No. The Deputy is-----

Deputies, the Taoiseach is responding and you were not interrupted. That is in compliance with Standing Orders. Do the same.

What real empathy means is that when a proposal is on the table for 360 affordable and social houses, people would allow it through for the young people who want to get those affordable houses substantially below the market price. The Social Democrats go on about costs and everything, yet they oppose it. The Deputy's party opposed the provision of those houses because of the ownership of a crèche.

They might be affordable for the Taoiseach-----

Deputy Hearne talks about prices. Those first-time buyers get prices at €335,000 and €375,000-----

The Taoiseach's time is up. I call Deputy Healy.

-----for a three-bedroom house. That is below the market value, yet Deputy Hearne talks about empathy? He talks about caring. He does not care. He is just interested in ideology and exploiting a crisis.

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach's time is up. Deputy Healy, on your feet please.

Public safety requires a modern, properly staffed, properly funded, properly resourced and fit-for-purpose structured Garda organisation, but despite the best efforts of gardaí on the ground - gardaí who are stretched to the limit - the Garda organisation is not delivering for the public. The new Garda divisions introduced by the former Commissioner are an unmitigated disaster. The Tipperary-Clare division is particularly unwieldy and dysfunctional, being 170 km from the west coast of Clare to Carrick-on-Suir, a journey of two and a half hours. Garda numbers are down in the area, retirements are up, and the community policing service has been decimated, as has the roads policing unit. In 2010, Ireland had 1,182 community gardaí. In 2026, we have 591. In 2010, Tipperary had 108 community gardaí but now the whole area of Clare and Tipperary has a grand total of 18. The Clonmel Garda district covers the town of Clonmel, with a population of about 20,000 and another 20,000 in the hinterland, including Fethard, Kilsheelan, Clerihan and Lisronagh. Increasingly, it covers areas with unmanned stations, like Kilsheelan, and stations that have been downgraded, like Carrick-on-Suir.

Clonmel Garda station is particularly badly affected. In 2024, we had 64 gardaí. In October of this year, after the attested gardaí, we now have 55, which is nine fewer than in 2024. This level of Garda numbers does not allow for Garda visibility. To see gardaí on the beat is now a rarity. Visibility and gardaí on the beat are vital for public safety. Gardaí themselves are being put at risk by the fact that they are going out to incidents on their own. We have had instances where gardaí on their own have been assaulted and had to be helped by members of the public. Our town centres are being abandoned to antisocial behaviour, drug use and drug dealing. The few community gardaí that we have do tremendous work but are overwhelmed and stretched to the limit.

Will the Government immediately and as a matter of urgency replace the nine gardaí positions that have been lost since 2024 and increase the number of community gardaí? Please do not tell me that we are getting a new Garda station,-----

The area is. The sod has been turned-----

-----which we are and it is very welcome, but a Garda station is bricks and mortar. What we need is feet on the beat, and we need them now.

I thank Deputy Healy for raising what is a very important issue. First of all, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to An Garda Síochána, which serves our country with great commitment and diligence-----

Absolutely.

-----in looking after our people and our community and protecting them in the face of ever-growing challenges from technological threats across to the community Garda presence on our streets. We should always aspire to maintain the embeddedness that our gardaí have in our community, that sense of a community-based approach, which has stood us in good stead compared to many other political systems and polities across the world. In the context of the European Union Presidency, I want to pay particular tribute to An Garda Síochána for the work it has been doing.

We have been very focused on increasing the number of gardaí in the country. As the Deputy will know, there has been a constant and consistent recruitment and attestation of gardaí on a regular basis through Templemore. It is maxed out and at full capacity. The good news is that more people are applying than we can accommodate. We now have 14,825 sworn gardaí, which is the largest number in the history of the State, and 200 more will come out of Templemore in December. That will bring us to about 15,000. We have provided more funding in the Estimates for next year for further recruitment and training at Templemore. We acknowledge that the population has grown and we need to increase the number of gardaí. We acknowledge what the Deputy is saying about the need for more gardaí across the country. The Minister provides the resources, and the Commissioner has been deploying gardaí in accordance with his operational framework. He has identified areas. Obviously, the Garda will be in a position, as we continue to recruit, to add more gardaí to Tipperary and to places across the country. I love the way the Deputy says "do not tell me" the good news in advance so that he gets it out before I can say there is a new station at Clonmel.

That is what I was told the last time I raised this issue.

Skilfully done, Deputy, but we should acknowledge it at the same time. It does represent investment in Clonmel, which needs it, and there is no issue there.

We will refer to the Commissioner the Deputy's emphasis and prioritisation of community gardaí and the desire for more numbers on that front, and we will relay that back. Obviously, it is an operational decision for the Commissioner. He is leading well and I believe that the continued regular recruitment into Templemore and the continued regular attestations will incrementally increase the gardaí and we will increase deployment across the country.

With respect, the Taoiseach has not addressed any of the issues I have raised. The fact of the matter is that cities are being prioritised over rural areas, at the expense of rural areas. Garda management appears to be oblivious to the needs of the public in areas like south Tipperary. We only have to look at the recent allocation of new gardaí in October of this year. Of the 207 attested gardaí, 160 or almost 80% went to Dublin and the east, 25 went to Waterford city and the rest of the country shared 22 gardaí. I repeat that in Clonmel we have nine fewer gardaí than we had in 2024. That is not good enough. We are entitled in south Tipperary to a fair share of the Garda complement. I ask the Taoiseach to intervene with the Minister. We were promised a meeting with the Minister before the summer recess.

The Deputy's time is up. The Taoiseach to respond.

That did not happen. We have asked the Minister to meet us again, all three TDs.

Deputy Healy, you are not different. Your time is up. The Taoiseach will respond.

I ask the Taoiseach to intervene with the Minister to get that meeting, please.

The Minister has no difficulty meeting with the Oireachtas representatives from south Tipperary.

When?

I do not have his diary here with me. He will engage with the Deputy. The Commissioner and the management of An Garda Síochána are not oblivious to rural Ireland.

They would appear so.

They are not oblivious to the needs of rural Ireland. There was an argument, if we are honest. The Deputy mentioned the 28 that have gone to Waterford. I think the way he has done it is having an impact in cities. I acknowledge that. We will get there in terms of Clonmel and south Tipperary.

We have had a reduction, not an increase.

Deputy, I will get you the Standing Orders for Leaders' Questions. Stop interrupting.

There has been very steady progress in the last 12 months. We know that because of Covid-19, Templemore closed. That was a significant pause in recruitment, and that was a problem. Now we are really catching up very quickly. Templemore is our training centre for An Garda Síochána. We have made a decision to maintain that. We will have substantial numbers coming out next year as well.

I want to raise the treatment of Mr. Ciarán Kenneally, a former Tusla employee who recently featured in The Irish Times. I have raised this matter in the House on several occasions. To refresh the Taoiseach's memory, in 2019 Mr. Kenneally made a protected disclosure about procurement and financial governance in Tusla. An independent investigation by RSM Ireland found the concerns were not upheld but, through a freedom of information request through my office, I obtained the financial audit from the same period, where 18 different instances of wrongdoing were recorded and 12 recommendations were made. It has been confirmed to me in writing that RSM Ireland has never seen that audit. Let us reflect on that. The independent investigator never saw the findings that were directly relevant to that particular investigation. Would it have changed the outcome? Who is to say? I think it may have.

Between 2018 and 2019, over €50,000 was recorded as "pocket money" in a ledger of the Tusla facility in Cork. I believe it deserves scrutiny when somebody records it as "pocket money". However, the man who raised concerns about this faced sustained campaigns directed at him personally and through his work life. In January of this year, a data protection commissioner found that Tusla unlawfully processed Mr. Kenneally's personal information and data by carrying out an unauthorised background check on him. When challenged about this, Tusla justified it on its own headed paper and claimed that it had concerns regarding his capability and capacity to interact with vulnerable children. Let us reflect on that. It is an extremely dangerous and serious accusation to make about anybody. Never once has any evidence been produced, nor has a document of accusation been produced. That is what they used as an excuse to carry out an unauthorised check. There has never been an apology or explanation and nobody has been held accountable.

In 2025, he made a second protected disclosure, raising his concerns at the highest level of Tusla management. Tusla has acknowledged his complaint but has not investigated it. Mr. Kenneally has spent years seeking answers under his protected disclosure but instead, he has been penalised. I am asking the Taoiseach to intervene with the Tusla commission to look for a full independent review of the case going back to January 2019. It must cover both disclosures, the audit finding withheld from RSM Ireland, and the DPC findings on allegations against him. Mr. Kenneally has suffered tremendously and this is still going on. Yesterday we saw another headline regarding Tusla. I not asking the Taoiseach to adjudicate, but to intervene.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. I do not have the specifics of this case or indeed of the protected disclosure. As the Deputy knows, there are established procedures governing protected disclosures and set procedures for dealing with them. I will ask Tusla for its perspective on this case and the background to it. It goes back, I think, as far as 2018 and 2019. I cannot really comment on the assertions or points the Deputy has made because I do not have the requisite detailed background.

One of the challenges in more recent times is that, notwithstanding the fact that we have protected disclosures frameworks and procedures, invariably it seems that those who make protected disclosures do not seem to get either closure or adequate responses. This goes back since we brought in the Act of 2014 and did a major amendment in 2022. We are going to have a further statutory review of the Act in 2027 and public consultation will be carried out in advance of this. Fundamentally, it seems to me that right across the board, we are witnessing quite a number of protected disclosures being made and then those who have made them not at all being satisfied with how they have been progressed or with the responses. I am open to an overall review of it. My own view is that when disclosures are made, the existing structures should have the capacity and capability to deal with them comprehensively; to answer the questions that have been asked; if things were done wrongly, to apologise for that; and to make good. I will talk to Tusla in respect of this case and revert back at that stage.

I will write formally to the Taoiseach setting out the entire thing, and I will cc his Minister on it. The one thing we can agree on is that protected disclosures are perhaps not working the way they should. It has been highlighted by the EU Commission, which has written to the Government on three separate occasions regarding protected disclosures in this country. We can assert one thing from all this conversation we have had about Tusla over the last number of months: Tusla cannot be allowed mark its own homework at this stage. I will write formally to the Taoiseach. I am asking for a full investigation into this to cover from 2019 all the way up to 2025. The Taoiseach knows as well as I do that when somebody's name is taken and serious allegations are made, with absolutely no evidence at all, it destroys somebody's life. It has not only destroyed his life; it has destroyed his personal relationships with people and he has suffered financially. On the bullying that went on in that organisation against that particular whistleblower, I can draw the parallels across many whistleblowers. It needs to be addressed.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. He has been briefed and has been involved in this and has pursued the issues through freedom of information and questions. I will engage with Tusla in respect of it and ascertain its perspective. We are reviewing the Act. We did amend the Act, giving effect to Directive (EU) 2019/1937, the whistleblowing directive. We are working on that. I will come back to the Deputy. The problem we face across the board is the question of who does the investigations. There are calls for public inquiries regularly now on a whole range of issues. We have to develop a system within the State so that existing organisations can adequately give closure and respond to people in situations like this.

My question today is about the urgent need for legislation to address the role that exposure to extreme pornographic material is playing in normalising sexual violence and harmful sexual behaviour among young people. There is growing recognition across the world that violence and extreme pornography is both highly accessible and increasingly influential. It is shaping attitudes about sex, relationships and consent, particularly among young people. Research from the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy, SERP, Institute in Ireland has identified our relationship between the consumption of extreme and violent pornography and acts of violence against women and girls. This should concern everybody in this Oireachtas.

If one looks at the front pages of many of the world's most popular pornography websites, one will see content that normalises degradation, humiliation, coercion and violence against women. The increasing availability of pornography depicting forceful strangulation and suffocation is really concerning. These are difficult subjects to talk about but we have to face up to them. Health professionals have repeatedly warned about the serious physical and psychological risks associated with these practices yet they are being presented and, indeed, spun online as a routine and even desirable part of a sexual relationship. Women's Aid has described mainstream pornography as providing a blueprint for the sexual, verbal and physical abuse of women by male intimate partners. Repeated exposure to violent pornography normalises the idea that aggression towards women is an acceptable part of sex.

Young people, in particular, are really vulnerable to these messages. The evidence from the SERP Institute is clear. Many young people are regularly consuming pornography before their first sexual experience with another person. For some, pornography then becomes the primary source of information about sex and relationships, shaping expectations long before they have developed the emotional maturity to critically assess what they are seeing online. Family psychotherapists, teachers and front-line organisations are now dealing with the consequences. They report that young people are presenting with skewed views of consent and intimacy. In what world is it normal or acceptable for teenagers to think that strangling, degrading or physically harming a partner is a normal part of a relationship?

It cannot be accepted that technology companies and pornography platforms are permitted to expose children and young people to increasingly extreme content with little meaningful regulation. Will the Government commit to bringing forward measures to introduce robust age verification for pornographic websites? Will the Government introduce specific offences relating to the production, distribution and promotion of violent pornography that normalises sexual violence and reinforces harmful misogynistic attitudes towards women?

I thank the Deputy very much for raising this very important issue. In short, the Government is responding in an affirmative way to the points he has raised. First of all, we have a zero-tolerance approach to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. It is a scourge on our society. The level of violence against women is very serious. We want to ensure that all victims and survivors can access the support, protection and justice they require.

In July, the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, secured Government approval to commence drafting additional heads of Bill for inclusion in the general scheme of the criminal law (sexual offences, domestic violence and international instruments) Bill. As the Deputy has asked for, this Bill will create offences relating to the possession, production and distribution of violent or extreme pornography, addressing a significant gap in Irish law. As the Deputy correctly said, such material is having a harmful impact, particularly on young people and in terms of the normal sexual development of young people. It is contributing to misogynistic attitudes but also to violence. These offences will take an objective approach. They will cover material that would appear, to a reasonable person, to depict extreme violence, abuse, necrophilia or bestiality. This will include where technology has been used to alter or generate the material. The Bill is on the priority for drafting list in the autumn legislative programme.

The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, is also seeking to build consensus throughout the European Union on a co-ordinated criminal justice response to the harmful impact of extreme or violent pornography. The Minister hosted a productive discussion on tackling violent and extreme pornography among justice and home affairs ministers at the informal ministerial meeting held in Dublin in July as part of Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Officials continue to engage with the European Commission on potential further co-operation in this area. Of course, the Government's response also includes regulatory and public education measures. That builds on the good progress in embedding awareness of the very harmful effects of pornography, digital safety and consent into curricular reform and on the development of a broader pornography literacy strategy. The Department of justice is working with Cuan to develop a more comprehensive, targeted and effective multi-agency cross-sectoral response. As the Deputy knows, the establishment of Cuan was a milestone development in terms of Government's response to gender-based violence. Cuan provides the leadership, oversight and accountability for delivery in terms of the broad programme, the third national zero-tolerance strategy and the detailed implementation plan's progress report.

I welcome the additional heads of Bill as outlined by the Minister. The Minister knows he has my full support in supporting and getting this legislation through and on the Statute Book. As the Taoiseach said, it is hugely important that young people have access to accurate information, that there are good role models for them and that there is evidence-based education on consent, respect and healthy relationships. I feel, at times, we have taken our eye off the ball on these pornography sites for too long and let them effectively capitalise on what is pretty lax regulation across the European Union on addictive commercial practices. We cannot let pornography become the default sex educator for a generation of young people in this country and across Europe. It is a public health issue that is distorting young people's views and understanding of consent, intimacy and healthy relationships. Once again, I would welcome co-operation across the European Union in this regard. Can I get some clarity on the overall timeframe in which the Government would see these changes being made and the Bill being enacted?

I agree with all the sentiments the Deputy has articulated. It is a very serious and worrying issue. The Minister has briefed Cabinet on this for quite some time in terms of the violent nature of this pornographic material. There is a clear relationship between that and sexual violence against women, particularly in terms of the younger demographic in our country and globally, as the Deputy said. We need to really articulate that publicly, as the Deputy is doing now. It is important that we have these conversations because this is a crisis facing society and facing our younger populations in general in terms of the potential exposure they have to this violent pornography. I am not sure whether we will get the Bill to Second Stage before the recess.

It is a priority.

It is a priority, as the Chief Whip has just informed me. Certainly, we would want this passed early in the new year.

Ireland pays the EU's highest household electricity prices, over one third above the average. Figures have again exposed record August arrears and record long-term debt. As the Taoiseach knows, Irish families are now rationing heat and food just to keep the meters on. Why has the Taoiseach not acted decisively in the way families require to ease this burden? The Government's oil carbon tax cut was a half-measure at best. It got swallowed up by rising prices. The Government made no move in terms of electricity credits, as we advised. It made no move in terms of removing carbon taxes in their totality from home heating oil. Yet, the Government allows families to struggle on and pay what we know - it has been repeated again and again - are the highest costs in Europe, with record numbers in arrears.

The outbreak of war in Ukraine due to the Russian invasion and, indeed, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and attack on Iran have caused very excessive increases in energy prices. In the budget, we took significant particular measures to protect our population through tax cuts for workers; the cost of disability payment; the very substantial reduction in childcare that will, over time, impact positively on people; the enhancement and increase to old age pensions of €10; and also in respect of the fuel allowance. We have, therefore, taken a range of measures to try to alleviate the pressures that these undoubted increases in energy prices have placed on people.

I am hugely concerned that the Government does not understand the depths of the crisis in Cork University Hospital, CUH. Last week the Taoiseach did not even have the correct details of a crucial meeting between senior HSE officials and CUH management and you misled the Dáil, presumably inadvertently. If he does not have the basic information, what else is he missing? Is he aware that the hospital is operating with zero ICU beds today or that 70 people were treated on trolleys and chairs at the hospital on Monday? Is he aware that hospital doctors are warning that the staffing and overcrowding crisis will cost lives? The only response from the Government to date has been to attack the management team at CUH. Jack Chambers was at it again in the House yesterday. What use is that to patients in Munster? This blame game has to stop. We need solutions before the situation gets any worse. Will the Taoiseach take this opportunity to correct the Dáil record? What is the Government going to do to urgently alleviate this crisis in CUH?

First, I did not mislead the Dáil last week. That is unfair. What I said last week was that my understanding was that the regional executive officer, REO, was very clear that at no stage did he make any reference to instructions from the Taoiseach's office-----

But he did-----

Deputy, this is not a back and forth.

-----or anybody from the Taoiseach's office. I want that to be clear because false assertions were made about my office. False assertions were made about my office but the REO has now come forward, based on a recording of what he did say in relation to instructions, but he accepted that was a false assertion. He said that he should not have said that and that it was wrong. He had made an earlier statement to the HSE. What I would say is that I do not know whether he was aware - sorry, I do not think he was aware - that this conversation between the management and the HSE was being recorded. I think there are ethical concerns about that, if I am honest, and perhaps it is symptomatic of a real problem if people are recording conversations between management of the HSE and management of the hospital.

What about the actual crisis in the hospital?

I do not know who was responsible for the recording but I feel, generally, that it is not the way forward for workplace relations.

What about the hospital?

What is the Taoiseach going to do?

On the hospital-----

The time is up. Deputy Bacik.

-----I will come back to the Deputy.

No answer.

No interruptions is what you mean

I have one minute to answer.

People are still dying in Gaza as they battle the elements. Displaced by Israel, their tents are flooding with torrential rain. The world must do more to hold Israel to account for ongoing violations of the human rights of those in Gaza and the West Bank. Here at home we must also do more. On numerous occasions I have raised with the Taoiseach the denial of visas to students from Palestine who have been awarded scholarships by Irish universities. Due to litigation by those students, the Department of justice has committed to deciding on the remaining student visa appeals by 18 November. However, Gaza is a difficult place to leave, just as it is a difficult place to survive in. The next assisted departure is scheduled for 23 November but an evacuation requires seven to ten days of advance coordination. This is really urgent. Have the names of all students awaiting visa appeal decisions been submitted to the relevant authorities for the 23 November evacuation? How can we ensure that no student is left behind?

First, the situation in Gaza and the level of suffering inflicted on the civilian population, who are not responsible for the actions of Hamas, is shocking and an affront to human decency. Israeli strikes continue, humanitarian aid remains blocked and civilians continue to suffer. There is a sustained and deliberate attempt by some to make the prospect of a two-state solution impossible. There has been an election in Israel and I do not want to comment in respect of that until a new government is formed, other than to say that internationally, we should be doing everything we possibly can. Ireland continues to strongly support Palestine with additional funding. We have provided about €145 million in support to the people of Palestine since January 2023. That includes new funding of €41 million for the people of Palestine in 2026, and €78 million to UNRWA since 2023, with a further €20 million this year.

Thank you Taoiseach, the time is up.

On the visas, I will revert to the Deputy.

I have to raise again with the Taoiseach the fact that the people of south Tipperary have no consultant ophthalmology service. There is no public eye service and this situation is now going into its third year. There is no consultant-led service, no optometry clinic and no nurse-led clinic. As a result, there is a huge waiting list of almost 3,000, including hundreds of children who have never been seen and hundreds of patients with conditions like glaucoma who have either never been seen or who need follow-up care. Many families are being forced into private treatment even though they are already under serious pressure from the cost of living. This is obviously unacceptable. Twice we have been promised what is called a "blitz clinic" to deal with the urgent cases and the backlog but that has not transpired, so now we have neither a permanent nor a temporary solution. Will the Taoiseach intervene to ensure that there is a public eye service in south Tipperary?

I thank the Deputy for raising what is a very significant issue for the people of Tipperary. The Deputy knows that the post is funded and quite a significant effort has been made to recruit someone for that post. At different times people may have accepted but not taken up the post. There have been sustained efforts to recruit to the post. In the interim, measures have been taken to provide services to people in respect of ophthalmology. The post is funded and efforts will continue to recruit.

In the Dáil last week I raised the case of a fisherman in west Cork who was out fishing in his trawler for five days and who ended up with a fuel bill of €22,580 for those five days. This is not sustainable. Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, is due to roll out a fuel subsidy based on the size of a boat very soon. Inshore boats of between 6 m and 12 m will get €2,200. Boats of between 12 m and 18 m will get €4,400, while boats of between 18 m and 24 m will get €21,600 and those between 24 m and 40 m will get €26,500. There needs to be a new category if those with trawlers are to have any small chance of surviving. This new category should be 15 m to 18 m because someone with a 17 m trawler only gets €4,400 but someone with an 18 m trawler gets €21,600, even though they are both out in the same waters, in the same big ocean, fighting for their basic survival. The smaller boats are out in similar waters to the bigger trawlers. Will the Taoiseach communicate with BIM and the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, and ask them to see if a new category can be added? If not, more trawlers will end up tied up at the pier.

The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, deserves considerable credit for his engagement with fishers and their representative organisations. He was insistent on a fuel subsidy and support scheme for fishers, which was well received. I have not gone into the specifics of the modus operandi of that particular scheme but I will refer the Deputy's points to the Minister.

One of the greatest supports to first-time builders in rural east Galway over the last few years was when the development levy waiver was in place. First-time builders that I speak to in east Galway tell me that they are happy to pay for their water connection because they are getting water and for their ESB connection because they are getting electricity. However, when it comes to the development contribution to the local authority, they cannot see the point of it. I say that because they do not see footpaths or street lighting outside their homes and, particularly in rural areas, they have to make a much bigger investment in a septic tank and do not have access to a public sewer. Scrapping that development contribution for first-time builders in rural east Galway and across the country would be a really welcome development. I would appreciate the Taoiseach's thoughts on the matter.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. We have provided a range of very substantial supports for first-time buyers in particular, including the help to buy scheme and the first home scheme. In terms of development levies, we did have that waiver. That led to a substantial number of commencements and gave an injection at the time but it could not be sustained forever. We just have to balance the level of expenditure on housing more generally, which is up to €9 billion this year. We have changed the planning guidelines and those changes would be supportive of rural first-time builders and buyers. It is about balance, really, in terms of how we support housing, particularly in rural Ireland. The vacant and derelict property grants were originally designed primarily for rural Ireland, particularly the derelict element because young couples could get the opportunity to get a substantial grant to refurbish and move back in.

I am sure that the Taoiseach is aware of the great news that the judicial review against the Galway Port redevelopment has been withdrawn.

It is full steam ahead for Galway Port. The proposals include a new deepwater port not reliant on gated docks that will cater for larger ships, a new naval berth and access for cruise shipping, freeing up inner lands for housing, leisure and recreation. It will also assist in preventing flood surges and protect the city. The port will allow and have rail connectivity. There is space for strategic oil reserve storage as required in an unstable geopolitical international environment. Funding is partly via land sale, own resources and loans. However, the ports policies as they are and were, and the draft ports policy do not support Galway's ambition. I ask the Taoiseach to engage with the Minister and the Minister of State in the Department of Transport to ensure that new ports policy is positive for Galway's redevelopment.

I welcome the good news of the withdrawal of the judicial review. This follows the good news in respect of the Galway ring road and infrastructure projects in general across the country. It reflects the work of the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and the accelerating delivery task force recommendations and their implementation. There is a new impetus in trying to get projects done quickly. I am familiar with the plans of the port. I visited some years ago and am fully au fait with the ambition of Galway Port. The ports policy has been approved by Government. We changed it on its journey to enable Government, if necessary, to fund capital developments in ports. Prior to this ports policy, the view was that they had to wash their own faces, so to speak, in terms of revenue and expenditure. However, given the nature of certain expenditures the ports will have to engage with the ORE on renewable energy and so on. From time to time there may be a need for support like Rosslare with Brexit where the State intervened to support it.

I ask the Taoiseach to intervene in the imminent closure of Little Wonders disability service in Castleblayney, County Monaghan. The service has been in operation since 2019. Following significant operating costs and wage increases in the sector they have come to the decision they will have to close. They have a service level agreement with the HSE, which is refusing to give them additional money to keep the service open. The service supports 25 children daily with another 50 on a waiting list. I ask the Taoiseach to intervene to ensure this service stays open. The HSE needs to support this service and provide adequate funding so the service can remain open. There have been protests and meetings. Parents and children are very distressed at the imminent closure of this service.

The Government has provided funding for wage increases following the work of the joint labour committee in respect of early childcare workers. I am not familiar with the details of this specific facility and service but I will seek the background to this from the HSE on what the story is.

There is a serious crisis in home help and elderly care in the community in County Kerry. Community hospitals have empty beds because they cannot recruit or even fill the vacancies they had. That is putting extra pressure on University Hospital Kerry where people trying to get home help for their loved ones who cannot come out of hospital are forced to either pay privately or wait a year to access home help. There are cost overruns as part of it but they should not be punished for this relatively small amount. I ask the Taoiseach to commit to funding to ensure people are not delayed and can access the services they need to take people out of hospital and give them proper care in the community.

Approximately 60,000 people receive home care every day. The budget has expanded exponentially over the past number of years. There were issues with recruitment and getting a sufficiency of people to take up posts over the past two years. About 26 million hours of home care are being delivered in 2026. I hear what the Deputy is saying and I will engage with the HSE in respect of the issue he has raised.

I am sure, like many Members in the House this morning, I received a number of phone calls from families who, in turn, had received phone calls from their schools about a potential bomb threat. This was not just one school.; it was hundreds of schools throughout the country. We can only imagine what those families went through this morning. Thankfully it was a hoax, but in some cases, including two schools in my area of Kildare South, they were evacuated. What is the Government doing about this threat to our way of life and democracy? Is An Garda fully aware of what is going on with this important matter?

We are aware a number of schools received a threatening email this morning. The Department of justice has liaised with An Garda Síochána at senior level with regard to this incident. The Minister for Education and Youth has spoken to the Minister for justice and her officials have been in constant contact with An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána has received several hundred calls and will liaise with each school in turn, noting that with the volume of calls this may take some time. An Garda Síochána has advised the Department and is advising schools that based on its review of the threat, there is no need for schools to evacuate as these are generic email threats. If a school has received this email, it is advised to contact the emergency service at 999 and follow the advice of An Garda Síochána. The Department of Education and Youth wrote to all schools this morning to advise the same.

Sixty five years ago this month, the thalidomide drug was withdrawn internationally from availability, although not in this jurisdiction. In this jurisdiction, there are approximately 40 survivors, 12 of them unacknowledged by the State in terms of the effects this drug had on them and the lifelong disabilities and injuries they suffered as a result, none of which acknowledges the guilt their mothers felt. Many of those women are dead. There has been a protracted process to achieve three things for the survivors of thalidomide. These are a proper heartfelt apology for State's failure to act, a medical scheme that deals with their significant personal medical issues and a fair compensation scheme. Two years ago, the Government wrote to them expressing regret. Will the Taoiseach now give those survivors a timeline as to when these matters will actually be resolved? Can it possibly be done by 27 November to commemorate that 65th anniversary? These people should not have to wait any longer.

The Tánaiste, Attorney General and I have been involved in a number of meetings with the thalidomide survivors and unacknowledged survivors. We met them four times this year. I am as frustrated as anybody. We are committed to a State apology at the conclusion of the resolution process. In terms of medicals, we have provided a comprehensive enhanced pathway. Significant Government support and funding have been provided for that pathway. In July 2024, we issued a detailed and enhanced package of health, social care and independent living supports co-designed with thalidomide survivors currently available. An expanded National Thalidomide Advocacy Office is now in place. We also have a draft pathway for unacknowledged thalidomide survivors. This was tabled last month following engagement with representatives of the thalidomide survivors group, legal representatives and medical representatives. We want to get this-----

Time is up, Taoiseach.

The people of Letterkenny have waited many years for a relief road known as the Bonagee link. It has led to traffic misery not just for the people of Letterkenny but for people across County Donegal travelling to work and hospital appointments and for visitors to our county. There is utter bedlam regularly. The TEN-T project has been brought forward for a number of years. It takes in the relief road, the dual carriageway to Lifford on to the new A5, and the Ballybofey and Stranorlar bypass. Donegal County Council and the people of Donegal are asking the Taoiseach to make this a critical infrastructure project and make it progress urgently as soon as possible so we can deal with the traffic bedlam in Letterkenny and the other major roads issues in the county.

That project is progressing. The Deputy can be assured that the agencies and statutory agencies involved and responsible for this will progress it. I do not mean this badly, but we have big projects like wastewater drainage schemes and things like that. On roads, we expect Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the county councils to deliver them once they are through the planning processes and so on. However, we do not put every road project on the critical infrastructure list. We have to prioritise some of the very big ones to make sure they progress through. However, I will certainly talk to the Minister for infrastructure to see if any particular issues are holding this back now.

On the Short-Term Letting and Tourism Bill 2026, on 28 April, the Taoiseach told this House that planning law was planning and the seven-year rule was there. Basically, if someone is operating an Airbnb for seven years, he or she does not need planning permission. Yet the national planning statement still requires established operators without the necessary permission to apply for retention even where they have been operating for more than seven years. A presumption in favour of permission is not an exemption and a simplified application is still an application with no guarantee of its approval. A planning application can incur many difficulties.

These are families that have spent years building businesses and supporting tourism in County Kerry and throughout this country through their own hard work and investment. They took genuine reassurances from the Taoiseach's words. Will he now ensure the legislation and planning rules deliver the seven year exemption his statement led those operators to expect or is he withdrawing that assurance today?

The position in the legislation reflect comprehensive legal advice from the Attorney General but there has been unnecessary scaremongering on this issue.

Not on my behalf.

I saw the Deputy's recent post and it was a bit over the top, if I may say so. The Deputy mentioned the presumption of entitlement to planning if you are there for more than seven years and the simplified application. We are endeavouring to meet the legal frameworks to enable people. We did agree on the 20,000 threshold. The Deputy was in government when we agreed that.

I appreciate that.

There has to be a balance here in enabling people to get housing in communities. We were criticised for the 20,000 threshold but in rural Ireland and areas where tourism is important, we want to facilitate people to maintain short-term letting, that is, in areas below that threshold. This is a mechanism and a framework to enable us to do this without any potential legal ultra vires act.

October was one of the worst months on record for hospital overcrowding. University Hospital Cork, CUH, had 1,215 patients on trolleys. It was the second highest in the country. The CUH chief executive said their hospital had lost half the CT scanning capability because it cannot fill radiographer posts. Three hundred people are waiting for scan currently. We are now looking at patients taking up beds while waiting for scans, while others are on trolleys.

I do not want to carry on the way the House carried on a while ago with the "He said, she said" sort of carry on. What I need from the Taoiseach - from a Corkman to a Corkman, representing a hospital our constituencies need - is a commitment to sanctioning the posts for CUH which are needed to restore the CT capability before Christmas.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue in a constructive manner. We are concerned about increasing pressures on hospital across the length and breadth of the country, particularly on CUH. October has been a challenging month and the winter will be challenging. CUH has a substantial number of radiographers. I am at a loss as to why one of the CT scanners in the emergency department is not up and running. That should be prioritised. Moves are being made by the HSE to support the hospital. I believe there should be continuing engagement between HSE South West and the hospital management in respect of the issues facing it and to try to get this dealt with in a structured way through the established procedures.

HIQA was there recently on an announced inspection in respect of safety issues. We have to use HIQA, the patient safety office and so on to identify safety risks, etc. The more important point is that we will do everything we possibly can to support the reduction of pressures on people.

I want to return to the issue of Little Wonders. Families of children with disabilities in Monaghan and Cavan often describe their lives as a battle a day. They feel they have to fight for every service, whether it is occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech and language therapy and respite. Many of those families describe the Little Wonders facility as their lifeline because this fantastic facility often fills the gaps in disability services. There is now a cloud hanging over the Little Wonders facility. Parents and friends along with the children had to protest yesterday because of the fear they have.

My request to the Taoiseach is very simple. Will he appraise himself of the situation and directly intervene with the HSE because I believe a missive from his office can fast track what is absolutely logical, that the Little Wonders facility must be safeguarded into the future? It has to have the contract that will allow that to happen and to provide the peace of mind to those families who feel they always have to fight for these services.

I am not familiar with the background as to why the contractor, it seems to me, is withdrawing the service. I will talk to the Minister in respect of this but we provided funding for increased pay. Provision was made in last year’s Estimate for that and this year’s Estimate for next year as well in terms of fulfilling the agreements with the unions in respect of pay increases for childcare workers. I will try to get the background to this.

I want to continue to raise issues relative to the transport system in Galway city and the traffic issues people suffer. Traffic in Galway is always bad but there has been a particular spike in the past week for an unknown reason. It is not unusual for that to occur. Last week we welcomed fully planning permission for the city bypass. That needs to be complemented with adequate public transport infrastructure. There are two significant public transport projects in the city: the cross-city link and the Dublin Road bus corridor. The bus corridor received planning permission in 2025. I sought an update from the NTA last week as to when we might see work on the project and I was a bit disappointed and taken aback to read that construction will not commence until 2029. That seems to be in contrast with much of what we talk about in terms of accelerating infrastructure, which the Taoiseach referred to in earlier replies. Can that timeframe be reduced so that the construction of the Dublin Road bus corridor starts sooner?

Did the Deputy say it has planning permission?

It has full planning permission.

I will talk to the Minister for Transport and ask him to engage with the NTA on its timelines in respect of that. I do not know whether that is a funding or a prioritisation issue on the part of the NTA but I will certainly talk to the Minister in respect of it.

I want to raise an acute social issue with the Taoiseach. Since April 2018, about 3,000 children have left care, either residential care or foster care, in some shape of form. I was shocked to learn that when they turn 18, they are often directed to emergency accommodation, to apply for housing supports and put on social welfare. Many come from very traumatic circumstances. I have met many of them. Some fall into addiction to cope while many end up homeless. Part of this is due to the supports available to them and how those are extended beyond the age of 18 when they are still in a vulnerable situation. When I was 18, I could not navigate many things, not to mind set up a life as an adult myself. Part of this is also about joined-up thinking and making sure the proper agencies are collaborating with one another to give these people a better start in life through educational supports, therapeutical supports and so on. What will the Government do about children leaving foster care, rehabilitative services and care services?

I agree with the Deputy that this is a critical moment in the life of a young person who has been in care with the care services and I have discussed this with the Minister for children. She is very supportive of the idea that we need to provide a greater continuum of services but also a safety net, particularly in terms of housing and social supports. I am familiar with initiatives that are being taken in Wales in this respect for young people leaving care. The Minister has brought some measures forward relating to this specific issue but we can do more to enable people to make the transition, which can go in many directions if the level of supports are not comprehensive enough in the early stage of transition from care into society.

I move:

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to provide for criminal justice in respect of certain offences causing the death of an unborn child; and to provide for related matters.

I sincerely thank my co-sponsors who made it possible for me to bring this Bill forward. The tragic death of baby Jax Aylward in 2024 gripped the sympathy of many in this country and in the House.

At just 31 weeks of pregnancy, unborn baby Jax and his mother, Saoirse, were the victims of a road traffic collision caused by dangerous driving by a Ukrainian national who has since been sentenced to six months in jail. This case prompted the welcome move by Deputies Emer Currie and Barry Ward to introduce a Bill known as Jax's Law, this September. Although that particular Bill is a step in the right direction, its proposal still falls short of the kind of comprehensive law reform that is required. Over the past few years, we have seen multiple cases of pregnant women whose babies have died due to violence. In April 2021, in Dublin city centre, a pregnant woman in her third trimester miscarried following an attack by a criminal known to her, who hit her repeatedly. In December 2022, we learned of the harrowing case of the murder of Natalie McNally in Lurgan. She was 15 weeks pregnant and was murdered by her partner, Stephen McCullagh. In June 2025, in County Down, Sarah Montgomery who was 34 weeks pregnant with a baby boy was murdered. In each of these cases, there was not just a single victim, there were two victims, each with equal humanity and an accompanying right to have justice served under the law.

The Bill aims to provide a more robust protection in law to ensure justice is served for both women and unborn babies who are the victims of violence. In addition to covering the death or serious bodily harm to an unborn child through careless or dangerous driving, the Bill also covers circumstances where a person kills an unborn child unlawfully while intending to kill or cause serious injury to the mother or to someone else other than the unborn child. Furthermore, it applies to all stages of gestation. The Road Traffic (Amendment) (Jax's Law) Bill 2026, introduced earlier this year excludes children before 23 weeks gestation and, unfortunately, dehumanises the unborn child by affirming that "the provisions of this Act shall not be construed to confer personhood on any unborn child". I do not believe that this is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill.

Jax's Law was proposed as a response to a tragic taking of unborn life. We should apply the same principle across the board for unborn children who suffer violence at all stages of life and development. It is important for both parents and babies that their status as legitimate victims should be fully recognised. This Bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that unborn victims of violence have their rights respected. However, it is also important to stress that this law, if enacted, would not impact on the operation of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act, 2018. This Bill is about recognising the inherent humanity of unborn children and vindicating their rights. They cannot speak for themselves, but they are entitled to justice when their lives are impacted or ended by violent acts, whether intentional or unintentional. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the law has the scope to impose appropriate and proportionate penalties where an unborn child loses their life as a result of a criminal act. Importantly, the Bill does not classify such an offence as murder. Rather, it provides for the death of an unborn child to be recognised as manslaughter, where the circumstances warrant it. The sentencing provisions for manslaughter offer considerable flexibility, ranging from a fine to life imprisonment. This allows the courts to take account of the particular circumstances of each individual case, including the seriousness of the offence, the level of culpability of the perpetrator, and any relevant personal circumstances. In doing so, the Bill seeks to ensure that penalties are proportionate and reflective of the gravity of the harm caused. The Bill is important to ensure justice for victims of violence for mothers and unborn children and I commend it to the House.

Is the Bill being opposed?

It is not opposed.

Since this is a Private Members' Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members' time.

I move: "That the Bill be taken in Private Members' time."

I move:

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to make further provision for the regulation of wind turbines; to implement specific restrictions in relation thereto in the interests of local communities and occupiers of dwellings located in the vicinity of such turbines; and to provide for related matters.

I am very proud to move this Bill on behalf of Aontú. It is a straightforward Bill that seeks to introduce some reasonable safeguards around the planning and construction of wind turbines. In recent months, plans have been revealed for eight wind farms across my constituency of Mayo. In recent years, wind farms have been planned, proposed and developed. A range of new planning applications have been submitted in County Mayo over the past months in Aghagower, Ballycastle, Bangor Erris, Geesala, Crossmolina, Mayo Abbey and many other communities. In Mayo Abbey, for example, the proposal consists of seven wind turbines, each one 160 m high. These turbines, if built, would be taller than the Statue of Liberty in New York, Big Ben in London and the Spire in Dublin. The blades measure 136 m in diameter and it is shocking that if laid out on the ground of Croke Park, they simply would not fit. A number of large data centres have been planned and built in recent years, particularly in the east of the country, and these are placing enormous pressure on our national grid. In 2024, data centres accounted for 22% of the electricity usage in the State, which is more than all of the urban homes combined. Data centres pay significantly less for electricity per kilowatt hour than ordinary households. The west of Ireland is being targeted, and we are now going to see a proliferation of new applications for wind turbine developments to feed the grid for these enormously energy-hungry data centres.

Ireland already has the highest electricity costs in Europe. Wind turbines are being built not by the Government, but in the main by private international investment funds that often care very little about the communities. Their engagement is very questionable across the State. It is also a scandal that because the grid is unable to handle the large volume of electricity provided at certain stages of the week and of the day, many of these wind turbines must be turned off. This is known as curtailment. When these turbines are curtailed, compensation is paid, and it is the taxpayer and the bill payers who are paying for this enormous cost, and adding further costs in terms of bills. It is a cash cow.

This Bill seeks to introduce a set-back distance between the turbines and the communities and homes in which they are proposed to be built. This is really important. The current guidelines are outdated, and they do not account for the massive turbines that are now being proposed in rural Ireland. Aontú wants to ensure that turbines cannot be located too close to homes. We want to ensure a proportionality in terms of the height of the turbine and the proximity to a home. We want to make sure that the turbine must be set back from homes at least ten times its own height. This would mean, for example, that the communities in Mayo Abbey and many others would be protected.

It would force the companies to reflect on the distances and potentially reduce the height of these turbines. It would render many of these proposals in communities across Mayo impossible in their current form. It is reasonable. It is only fair that a proportionality would come into play here.

I commend this Bill to the House. I have listened to many Government backbenchers who have raised similar concerns.

Is the Bill opposed?

It is not opposed.

Since this is a Private Members' Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members' time.

I move: "That the Bill be taken in Private Members' time."

I welcome the second day of debate on the very important Social Welfare Bill 2026. I also welcome the efforts of the Minister and Ministers of State involved in preparing the Bill both for the budget announcement and as it passes its way through the House.

The total social protection package announced a number of weeks ago in the budget is worth over €30 billion. It is worth pausing to note that. There is an increase of €2 billion on 2026. Despite the debate at the weekend, the vast majority of that €30 billion goes to child, family, caring and pension payments. It is a basic floor that we set in our society to ensure that we protect and support people. I am always happy to stand over such a budget.

Some people say that those who are on social welfare get everything and those who are working get nothing. The answer to that is not to detract from those who need the Social Welfare Bill and the basic floor that we have. Rather, it is to ensure that we make work pay and that the taxation of people who work is fair. That is how I would approach the feeling that is often out there.

A huge array of positive measures are included in the Bill. I note the summation of the budget by the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI. Dr. Claire Keane, an associate research professor at the ESRI, said:

Policy changes in Budget 2027, and indeed over the last seven budgets, have compensated households on average for price and wage growth. In particular, the lowest income households have been most protected. This is positive given we know that lower income groups spend more of their income on home heating and motor fuels [and so on].

That quote, from somebody who is independent of this House and all the political parties, is important to reference. Over the past seven budgets, this Government and the previous version of it put together budgets that have sought to protect people. If you were to listen to Opposition speakers in this House, you would not be able to reconcile their commentary with that of the ESRI.

I note that the ESRI also makes other observations about the budget. I am not saying that everything was right but when we put it in context, we must say that this budget has done a lot to put money back in people's pockets. For a couple with three children on the working family payment, there is over €1,600 per year. For pensioners, there is over €600. With the living alone and fuel allowance increases, there are further benefits.

I was most pleased by the change to the eligibility for the fuel allowance, particularly for single people. That has changed from 50% of the total available to a couple to 60%, which gives a little more to people who apply for the fuel allowance. It is a valuable tool to prevent fuel poverty. Somebody living on his or her own has many of the same costs as somebody living in a couple when it comes to heating their home. I would like us to go a little further in the years to come.

The area in which we have seen most progress is the cost-of-disability payment. I acknowledge the work of the Minister and the Department, but also all of the different groups that have worked on this issue over several years. We know that the previous process that was introduced and was then withdrawn was an unfair way of categorising people. The Government is determined to try to introduce a cost-of-disability payment. This year's attempt to do that, with a lump sum payment of €500, is an important start. The most important part will be the co-design process that will happen next year to ensure that we have a cost-of-disability payment that affects all people with disabilities. I include in that those people with disabilities who are working. Those with disabilities who are working may not be eligible for this year's payment but when we co-design it, we must recognise that. Whether that is done through a fully refundable tax payment or by increasing the payment or eligibility, I would like to see that next year.

I commend the Minister and the Ministers of State for the work they have done so far.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. A good social protection system should protect people when they need support and must also help people to move forward and build a better future for themselves and their families. We all know that life does not always go according to plan. People lose jobs and families face unexpected challenges with ill health and family break-ups. Circumstances can change overnight, often due to matters that are outside individuals' control. That can be frightening for individuals and families. That is why we need a strong social protection system. As the Tánaiste said at the weekend, it is a safety net that any one of us may need at some point in our lives.

I also believe that supports come with responsibilities. We are exceptionally fortunate to live in a country with high levels of employment and opportunities for people who want to work. Our constituents often tell us that there is a job in this country for everybody who wants to work, yet the latest figures show that more than 52,000 people have been on the live register for a year or more. Being unemployed for a long time, of course, does not necessarily mean that somebody is unwilling to work. Some people face genuine barriers. They may lack qualifications. They may have lost confidence. They may simply need someone to give them an opportunity. That is where the State has a responsibility to help. Through Intreo training, apprenticeships and employment supports, we can help people to develop the skills and confidence they need to return to work. I welcome the Government's commitment to a new pathways to work strategy with a renewed focus on those who find it the hardest to get employment.

I want to say something else about work while I have the opportunity. Sometimes, we forget the benefits of having a job. Working is good for us. It is good for our mental health. There is pride in earning your own money and providing for your own family. There are many opportunities out there. If people get out of bed, get involved and do something worthwhile, there are even opportunities to serve this great country of ours and make a real difference by joining the Defence Forces or An Garda Síochána.

I want to be clear that I am not talking about people who cannot work because of illness or disability, nor am I speaking about people who have given up work to care for a loved one. We all know that caring for someone is a 24-hours-a-day responsibility. I am talking about people who are capable of working, who are receiving jobseeker's payment and who are expected to make a genuine effort to find employment. I do not think that is too much to ask. Getting somebody back to work is not just about saving the State money. It is about helping that person to have a better life.

We must also be fair to the people who do get out of bed every morning, go to work, pay their taxes and help to fund the services and supports on which we all depend. If someone is capable of working and is in receipt of jobseeker's payments, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect them to engage with the supports that are available. If they are making a genuine effort, it should be recognised. However, where someone repeatedly refuses to engage without good reason, there must be consequences. That is why I support the proposed increase in penalties for those who refuse to engage with employment services. Of course, those penalties must always be applied fairly and must also take into account individual circumstances.

I believe that everyone in Ireland deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential. That means supporting people when they need help, giving them opportunities and encouraging them to take responsibility for their own future. Social protection should never be about leaving people behind. It should be about helping people to move forward. That is the balance we should be trying to achieve.

I welcome the measures before the House and am happy to support the Bill.

Budget 2027 was about political choices, and those choices tell us exactly who had the ear of the Government in the weeks before it was announced and who was left outside the door. It certainly was not the pensioners whom I know who were afraid to turn on their heating, it was not the families struggling to put food on the table and it was not the workers being squeezed in every direction. Instead of addressing the real poverty and struggle people are going through, Fine Gael chose to attack people on jobseeker's allowance. The Tánaiste's disgraceful comments are a dangerous dog whistle and give licence to those who want to vilify anybody who is receiving social welfare. When I was listening at the weekend, I could not understand the hypocrisy of it. The Minister of State will remember the debates we had in the House on JobPath and how the Government explicitly privatised the supports that were helping people get back to work and abolished the local employment services. The Government spent hundreds of millions of euro on private companies to do what it called "activation". That was disgraceful. Fine Gael should not pretend to the people that it is trying to save them by ensuring that people who are unemployed for longer than ten years are held to account and all of that. I am holding it to account. I know this is not the Minister of State, but it makes me really angry. That there has been such waste of money around the privatisation of the social welfare system is disgraceful. There has been duplication and disbanding of the local employment services, which were doing really good work in helping people who needed to get on that pathway. I agree that everybody deserves a job and that everybody who can be working should be working, for their dignity, their lifestyle and everything else. However, for a Government to choose to privatise and then to say that the people the private companies left behind are to be blamed for all of this is totally wrong.

I also wish to raise the way this Government follows people beyond the grave. It follows dead people. These are people who maybe had Alzheimer's disease in the last stages of their lives and who were law-abiding citizens for all of their lives. They reached their late 80s or 90s, got Alzheimer's and forgot to tick a box or fill out a form. The Government comes and persecutes them after they are dead and criminalises them. It takes away their good name by saying that they claimed something wrong. That is totally wrong. I do not believe in anybody scamming or abusing the system, but when you have on the one hand the principles of paying out millions of euro and following people beyond the grave and, on the other, you have everything being taken from the poorest in society, it is not right.

Let us cut to the chase. This Bill is about Simon Harris trying to look tough. He was trying to be the big man at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis at the weekend by targeting the 1.1% of the population who had been unemployed for over 12 months. It was not even original. We all remember the "rat for Leo" line. What was its slogan? It was, "Welfare cheats cheat us all". It is the usual Fine Gael tactic of punching down. Fine Gael insists that it is not the banker, not the developer and not the vulture fund that is the problem, but the man or woman over there. It is the other, the less well-off, the 1.1% of the population. If we focus on the other person over there, we are letting the Tánaiste and his cronies off the hook. We are not focusing on those in power. His answer is to threaten people who already have the least amount of power.

What was the Tánaiste's slogan at the weekend? It was, "An Ireland alive with possibilities". Possibilities for whom? Is there a possibility of ending homelessness soon? When Fine Gael came into government, there were 3,800 people who were homeless in this State. Today, there are almost 18,000. There are almost 6,000 children homeless. What is the possibility of those children having a home this Christmas? What is the possibility of opening the children's hospital? It is the hospital that the Tánaiste signed off on as Minister for Health, which is still not open and which has so far cost the taxpayer an additional €1.3 billion euro. What about the possibility of no child waiting for more than four months for scoliosis treatment? Where was that possibility? I could go on because there are endless possibilities to put the wrongs inflicted by Fine Gael right but Fine Gael will not do pursue them. Actually, Fine Gael cannot do it. It does not have the capacity to fix the problems it created in the first place. It is too long in government.

Social protection is a safety net, not a political punching bag. A Government serious about tackling long-term unemployment would address deprivation, keep young people engaged in education, and have proper employment services, accessible training and decent jobs. What we see is not leadership. Leadership would see Fine Gael stopping the sweetheart deal with the banks. Leadership would see Fine Gael taxing vulture funds on their rental properties.

One of the things from the last budget many people have contacted me about was the increase in the living alone allowance. Imagine having the gall. Imagine being so out of touch to think that increasing the living alone allowance by a measly €3 would make any difference to a senior citizen. You would not even get a cup of coffee out of that €3. Pensioners are impacted by the cost of living like everybody else but pensioners who are living on their own are impacted more because they have to pay for the heating and all the other bills on their own. The Minister of State is involved in this. What planet was the Government thinking of when it issued a minimal, measly €3 increase in the living alone allowance?

Before I speak to a number of the priorities that should be in this Bill, I ask the Minister of State to relay to the Minister, Deputy Calleary, a really important message about the additional needs payment. We are now into the winter. It is going to be a very tough winter for an awful lot of households. The one positive about the additional needs payment is that workers can access it. However, we continually have the issue of people coming to us because they have sought money for X and have been told it is not there. I had a lady yesterday who was told a gas bill could not be covered, yet the number one example for the longest time has been electricity or heating costs. I ask that a direction go out to our community welfare officers and to the social welfare offices across the State. We need that payment to be resourced and we need it to be as efficient as possible for people who will need it throughout the winter period. It needs to be there, it needs to protect and support people and it needs to be run as efficiently and quickly as possible.

One thing missing from this Bill is access to illness benefit for the self-employed. It is a commitment in the programme for Government and the self-employed pay their PRSI. It is always a strange one. I remember that, back in 2015, a survey was done with the self-employed and illness benefit was the top payment they looked for, followed by invalidity pension. Invalidity pension was awarded and of course that is long-term, but if you are self-employed and you get sick tomorrow, the disability allowance usually is not an option because of the household means test, nor is the supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, so we need to see an extension of illness benefit to the self-employed as quickly as possible. If they get ill, they have no access to anything. That is unfair and needs to be dealt with. It is in the programme for Government but it needs to be moved on an awful lot quicker.

On the cost of disability, the cost-of-disability payment should support the cost of disability. That is not the cost of disability if someone is on payment X, Y or Z. It has to focus on the additional cost of a disability no matter what payment someone receives. So many people are locked out of disability allowance because of the household means test. I hope that that will be looked at.

On one-parent families, I always make this case. Maintenance was removed from household means as regards social welfare payments. That was welcome. It is still there across other Departments when accessing other payments, though. Maintenance is for the child or children and it should never ever be treated as household means and all Departments should treat it the same way.

As for the comments the Tánaiste made, I had a motion in the last Dáil on our job clubs and our local employment services. It was a motion that was passed by this House. They were the people in the community who met people where they were at and who did not just look, as JobPath and the private providers do, at a job, any job, to tick a box so that they got paid. The job clubs and local employment services met the person where they were. They had wraparound services. They had all the supports, whether it was with addiction or otherwise. They supported people with what they needed. With the private companies, it is about a job, any job, so that they can get paid. That is their motive. They are companies - it is about profit, and that is what they do. Maybe the Department and the Minister can look back to the job clubs and the local employment services that this House supported in the motion I brought forward. They are a huge loss.

I welcome the Social Welfare Bill 2026. I commend my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Calleary, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and the whole team for bringing forward a package of measures that will make a genuine difference to households across the country. Taken together, all of these measures demonstrate a clear commitment to protecting vulnerable households, while ensuring that economic progress is shared fairly across society. It is a practical balance and it is a compassionate Bill that I am please to support.

In particular, I welcome the introduction of the new cost-of-disability payment. For years, people with disabilities and disability organisations themselves have highlighted a reality that many of us take for granted, which is that living with a disability often means facing additional costs every single day, be those medical expenses, assistive technologies, home adaptations or simply the extra energy costs associated with living with a disability. Those costs add up quickly and are a constant. The €500 cost-of-disability payment is, therefore, a welcome acknowledgment by the Government that these additional costs are real and that they deserve a dedicated response.

However, we all recognise that this is a very complex area and a lump sum payment is a very important start but as we continue developing this policy, there is merit in considering how existing supports can better recognise the realities of living with a disability. Let us take fuel costs as an example. Many people with disabilities spend significantly more time at home. Some people have conditions that make them particularly sensitive to cold temperatures and many disabled people simply need more heat and face higher energy bills as a result. That is why there is a strong argument for looking at measures such as automatic access to the fuel allowance for people on long-term disability payments. We should be examining ways to ensure that supports reach those with clearly identifiable needs, regardless of their means.

I welcome the increase in the disability allowance earnings disregard and the expansion of employment supports. Our goal should be to create a system where people can work the hours they are capable of working, where they are capable of working them, without fear of losing the supports they depend on. Disability is not a one-size-fits-all experience, and our welfare system should reflect that.

I would like to use this opportunity as well to raise the issue of foster and kinship carers. These are people who open their hearts and their homes to children who need stability, care and support. Foster carers play a critical role in our child protection system and they deserve support. As we begin looking ahead already to budget 2028, could the Minister give careful consideration to the concerns advanced by both foster care and kinship care organisations? Significant progress has been made in many areas of social protection but there is a strong case for examining the financial supports available to these carers and ensuring that they are adequately recognised for the vital role they perform. Could the Minister consider-----

I thank the Deputy very much.

I am delighted to speak today on this Bill. There is plenty in it to welcome - right across the board, from the State pension going over €300 a week for the first time since the foundation of the State to really important increases for carers and children. To me, the real strength of this Bill is the targeted supports for people who are most vulnerable. That is something on which I want to commend the Minister. I want to say why that matters so much. An increase across the board is welcome, there is no doubt about it, but for the people under real pressure, rising costs can eat that up very quickly. Targeting identifies the people who are carrying extra costs that others are not and puts the help right where they need it. To me, that is how we make every euro count.

There are two groups in particular I want to home in on here today: people with disabilities and people living on their own. For the first time ever, there is a cost-of-disability payment. It starts with a €500 lump sum next year for people on long-term disability payments, and it will be developed further, working directly with disabled people and their advocates. That is an absolutely massive step. The State is acknowledging just how much more it costs to live with a disability. The Bill also makes it easier for disabled people to get into work if they want and are able to do so. The wage subsidy scheme drops from 15 hours a week to eight hours. Someone on a disability allowance will be able to earn over €9,000 a year without losing a cent of their payment. That is going to make a real difference to people right across the country.

I want to see the same thinking for people living alone. This Bill makes a real start. The income limit for the fuel allowance for a single pensioner was always half of what a couple got. This Bill brings it up to 60% - €641. To me, that is the system finally catching up with what every person living alone already knows. One person cannot run half a house. There is no one to split the bills with and the heating, electricity, insurance and car all cost the same. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul says a person living alone needs nearly 80% of what a couple needs just to get by. The living alone increase is moving again, too; for the first time in five years. That is a welcome start, but I want to see it pushed ahead in the next budget and subsequent budgets.

As rural affairs spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, I also welcome the rural dweller pilot, which is expanding to 500 places. It lets over-50s in rural areas earn a top-up on their payments by doing part-time work with local community groups. My ask of the Minister is not for one big number, but to use the momentum from this Bill to keep the focus on targeted support for people with disabilities and people living alone. Will the Minister make sure that Carlow and Kilkenny get their fair share of those rural dweller places? I will be doing absolutely everything I can to get that over the line.

This Bill shows what targeted support can do for the people who need it most, so they can get some breathing space and live with dignity. Let us keep it going.

I am glad to get an opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill and to raise with the Minister of State a case of a constituent of mine, a 44-year-old man who has cerebral palsy. He has been on the disability allowance payment since he was 18. This week, he received a letter from the Department seeking that he would complete a very comprehensive set of paperwork to indicate whether there has been any change in his medical condition or his personal circumstances. I hope the Minister of State is paying attention because this is his Department messing up. Who does it expect will have to go through all this? Is it this 44-year-old man who has cerebral palsy, who is doing his best to live an independent life, or his elderly parents? This family has made a correlation - I do not know whether there is one - between Rambo Harris's remarks about cracking down on social welfare payments and this letter that has come through their door. I am going to be raising this directly with the senior Minister and asking him to intervene, but I want to say it very clearly: this young man is not a burden on our State. He is an absolutely invaluable addition to our local community and he is much loved and appreciated, and our systems should reflect that. The systems within the Department should reflect that. There needs to be a system in place whereby it does not send somebody with a profound disability a form of this nature, asking them to reaffirm the situation as it has been every year since they were 18 when they are now 44. That is unfair and verging on the cruel. I will be writing to the Minister in this instance asking him to intervene and ensure that this request is withdrawn.

I thank the Deputy.

Will the Minister of State ensure that his Department shows a bit of humanity when dealing with cases like this?

I want to open my remarks by referring to what the Tánaiste stated at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis at the weekend. As many people have said, it was absolutely appalling. I welcome that the Minister has somewhat distanced himself from them, but it goes without saying that this is what the entire country believes is the Government's approach to social welfare recipients. The Tánaiste has called for us to bring in a system that is already in place and penalties that already exist. Where is he going with this? Is it to push people and jobseekers who are getting penalties of €90 already and who are living on €150 a week further into financial penury and God knows what? Is it totally to remove the floor of decency from anyone? We have a number of job activation schemes and have had for many years. The system is tough and is engaged with people who are not engaging with these services, and the penalties are in place. What is the Tánaiste's messaging here? We know that when he walked into the Ard-Fheis, he said he wanted to appeal to people who used to vote for Fine Gael and maybe did not any more - maybe those voters who are attracted by the Minister, Jim O'Callaghan's language and movement on immigration. Those strongman politics may be working for one Minister in Fianna Fáil on one issue, and disgusting as it is, the Tánaiste is now trying to appropriate it for Fine Gael and make it work for him.

When Fine Gael is in trouble, it always reaches for someone vulnerable and some group to punch down upon to distract from its own poor ratings and to put attention on a problem that does not exist. If a problem does exist, there are remedies for it and they are in place. It was one of the grubbiest and most disgusting things I have seen in my time in politics. The Tánaiste needs to listen to what the Minister for Social Protection is saying in relation to the social protection system. This Bill is not perfect. It does not go anywhere near where we want it to go. However, it certainly does not reflect the tenor and atmosphere of the Tánaiste's statement over the weekend. There is some distance there.

When it comes to this Bill, we welcome that the Government has finally made a move on a cost-of-disability payment. We called for €30 a week. The Government has started with €10 a week. It is not enough but it is a start. Hopefully, we can see improvements in this area. Hopefully, this can become a fundamental of the social protection system. Domiciliary care allowance remains the forgotten or most poorly treated social protection payment. We all know the difficulties with domiciliary care allowance. It is the most difficult payment for applicants to get. They are made to jump through so many hoops. They believe they have to put in the application, which will be refused, so that they can then appeal. That is how people feel when they are applying for domiciliary care allowance. It is the one payment that did not get an increase in this budget. Again, those in receipt of or applying for domiciliary care allowance cannot help but ask why they are always treated differently and why they are always treated so poorly.

I echo what my colleague Deputy Wall, the Labour Party spokesperson for social protection, said yesterday when he gave a fantastic speech and a fantastic analysis of where this Bill is deficient in relation to carer's allowance. The 600,000 family carers in this country save the State €20 billion a year in unpaid care work. As Deputy Wall said, that is the equivalent of another HSE. The Government continues to fail to plan to build capacity in this area and in residential and independent living options for people living with disabilities. It is more than 20 years since the Labour Party first called for the removal of the means test on the carer's allowance. It is about time that we saw genuine movement in this area. This Bill goes some way, but it does not go anywhere near enough. I reiterate that the Tánaiste's comments at the weekend were an absolute disgrace and he needs to apologise for them.

We will take the Members who are here. I call Deputy Boland. I propose to allow Deputy Gibney to take five minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed. She was at a committee.

Deputy Gibney can go first.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and everyone. I really appreciate it.

In the context of this Bill, I wish to raise issues that affect people with disabilities and lone parents. Regarding working disabled people, on paper we supposedly have a system that promotes independent living and supports disabled people to enter the labour market if they wish. The Government continuously bandies about slogans over how important it is to make work pay. For too many people in this country, the prospect of a promotion, extra hours or a pay increase is not a cause for celebration but instead is a source of fear and anxiety. Those who receive disability allowance and have medical cards spend their whole lives walking a tightrope where they cannot earn enough to live comfortably but they also cannot risk losing the disability support they receive by going over an arbitrary income limit. Instead of making work pay, many people with disabilities are trapped in a catch-22 where they are much worse off in work. This undermines their agency, independence and right to participate in society. Systems like these are part of the reason that Ireland has one of the lowest rates of employment among disabled people in Europe at 32.6%, compared with an EU average of 51.3%.

Similarly, there is no effort to make work pay in this Bill for people parenting alone. The Government has repeatedly failed to sufficiently increase income disregards for the jobseeker’s transitional payment and the one-parent family payment. This means that lone parents cannot afford to enter employment, once again trapping them in a cycle of poverty. Since 2000, there has been a reduction of more than 55% in the amount of income that lone parents can earn before these payments are impacted. This makes it harder - not easier - to enter employment. This is not making work pay. I mentioned the reduction that has taken place since 2000. I had a child in 2000 as a lone parent. It kills me - it was one of the motivations for me to get into politics - that from about 2011 onwards people were so much worse off as single parents. It became so much harder to have a child and rear a child alone and navigate the Byzantine system of supports that are available for people who parent alone. They are negative incentives left, right and centre for them in terms of entering into work.

I wish to discuss one-off measures and means testing. The once-off €500 cost-of-disability payment provided for in this budget is only available if a person already qualifies for another long-term disability payment, the vast majority of which are means tested. This crucially misses the entire point of a cost-of-disability payment. It does not matter how much a wheelchair user, a person who uses mobility aids or a person who needs assistive technology makes; they still have a series of huge unavoidable costs simply because they have a disability. That is what we are talking about in the Social Democrats when we talk about the cost of disability. Regrettably and regressively, the payment in next year's budget is once-off. People who have expressed their frustration to my office about this have explained that their disabilities and the costs associated with them will not evaporate in the next 12 months.

As arts spokesperson for my party, I wish to speak about disabled artists and to highlight a particular aspect of their experience which often remains unseen. Disabled artists face huge barriers when it comes to accessing arts funding and measures that are meant to support them in their craft. This is something I have raised with the Departments of Culture, Communications and Sport and Social Protection. The lack of a formalised system for income disregards related to the Arts Council's funding and the basic income for the arts scheme leaves disabled artists in an administrative mess at best and at worst without the vital supports they need to live in dignity. For many, this creates a chilling effect where they are too afraid of losing their medical cards or other crucial supports to even apply for funding that should be available to them. I thank the DADA Campaign group, which has highlighted this, as well as many other disabled artists who continue to push for change in this area. Awards, grants and commissions for artists are not income. They are a total project budget. However, our social welfare system does not systematically recognise this and often treats them as personal income. If we want equal access to arts in this country and if we want to benefit from the fantastic talent and work of disabled people, we need to recognise them in our systems.

Let us talk about what solutions look like. The situation for disabled people in employment, one-parent families and disabled artists can be solved by the same thing, which is viewing people with disabilities and people parenting alone not as an exception to be worked around or, worse, ignored but as a fundamental feature of the rich and diverse tapestry that makes up our society. We need to recognise why supports are there for people in the first place and look at the wider context of their living and working realities. If a system does not reflect the lived reality of so many disabled people and lone parents in this country, it is the system that must change. Inclusion is not about pity. It is not about charity. It is a duty that we have to every single person in this country to ensure they can live a good and dignified life. Má tá muid ag iarraidh tír a bheith againn ina bhfuil cothrom na Féinne ag gach duine, caithfidh muid córas a chruthú a aithníonn na difríochtaí agus éagsúlachtaí inár bpobal. Is féidir córas a chruthú atá in ann freastal ar na héagsúlachtaí seo ach, faraor, níl sé seo le feiceáil i bpolasaithe an Rialtais. If we want a country of equals, we need systems that recognise the variations and differences in our communities.

I welcome the many positive measures contained in the Social Welfare Bill and the improvements across a wide range of social welfare supports, including the cost-of-living disability payment. I very much welcome progress made on the carer's income disregard. I acknowledge the substantial scale of this social welfare package of almost €31 billion. It is one of the largest investments made by the Government in any area. This reflects the value that this Government places on supporting pensioners, carers, people with disabilities, jobseekers, workers and families. I particularly welcome the increases in maternity, paternity, adoptive and parents' benefits. However, these remain flat-rate payments despite being funded through PRSI contributions. As I have raised repeatedly in this House, the time has come to deliver on the programme for Government commitment to expand pay-related social insurance benefits, starting with supports for parents.

Supporting working families is not just good social policy; it is good economic policy. It strengthens workforce participation, helps employers to retain skilled staff and gives families greater financial security. Recent analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office has highlighted the substantial surplus in the Social Insurance Fund, which now has reserves in excess of €20 billion. While those reserves have important long-term purposes, in particular relating to pensions, I ask the Minister to examine whether a portion of that strength can be used to improve PRSI-funded supports for working families.

I have repeatedly raised the need for a public awareness campaign around entitlements for parents. Too many families, in particular fathers, remain unaware of important supports such as paternity leave and parents' leave. Supporting fathers to spend more time with their children in those early months benefits children, families and society as a whole.

I want to touch on unemployment activation and Intreo. Many Intreo employees provide an excellent service and work hard to help people. However, it would be wrong of me to ignore the criticisms I regularly receive from my constituents who are service users. I continue to hear concerns from people who find the system overly bureaucratic, inflexible and difficult to navigate, in particular those trying to move from welfare into entrepreneurship or self-employment. These are people who are taking the initiative and trying to create jobs, build businesses and become economically independent, yet many of them report that the system can place obstacles in their path when it should be helping them to succeed.

I ask the Minister to examine whether these schemes are sufficiently flexible and tailored to individual circumstances, in particular for those seeking to establish their own businesses. The question is very simple: if someone wants to move into entrepreneurship, are we making that journey easier or harder? I encourage the Minister to review these schemes, engage with Intreo teams and ensure activation services are genuinely supporting entrepreneurship, self-employment and business creation.

I welcome the substantial social welfare package and the significant investment being made in social protection. I urge the Minister to move swiftly on the programme for Government commitment to expand pay-related social insurance benefits, beginning with supports to parents, and to ensure a renewed focus by Intreo on entrepreneurship within our employment activation system so that people seeking to build businesses and create jobs are supported and not discouraged. If we get those two areas right, we will strengthen families, our economy and our social protection system.

I hope the Minister had a good time last weekend at the nasty party Ard-Fheis. Poor Simon Harris was not allowed to debate the motion he wanted to debate on Fine Gael embracing the anti-woke politics that have just been rejected by the American electorate. He is slightly late. Instead of being able to vote on that, he decided to use his Ard-Fheis speech to signal a further move rightward. The party is in a competition with Fianna Fáil on that one. Unemployed people, older people and those who are struggling were collateral damage in the Fine Gael vice signalling. It was red meat for the Fine Gael base by creating a false narrative, which thankfully was rejected by the Minister at the start of the debate, about there being loads of people on the dole as a lifestyle choice.

The Bill does the same thing. It does something, whereas Simon Harris was not doing anything. He did not propose any policies whatsoever. It was simply a rhetorical flourish. The Bill is about increasing the penalties for non-compliance with activation measures to €100 per week. One of the most disturbing aspects of the debate that then unfolded was the attempt by the Tánaiste to portray and pretend that this is being done out of concern for the children of the long-term unemployed. Happy Christmas, kids. Fine Gael - that is, Scrooge - is going to cut your parents' dole but do not worry, it is somehow actually for your own good.

This is a Government that has stood over an increase in the rate of child poverty in one of the richest countries in the world, where one in ten children are being deprived of necessities. Fine Gael and the Government, in terms of these policies, are now implementing extra-hard punitive measures which will punish children even more and drive more children into poverty. The Tánaiste is fond of saying, "Let's be clear on this". Let us be clear on this: cutting someone's dole does nothing to help them to get a job. All it does is make their life and the lives of their children harder. People who are already poor and stressed out as a result of poverty are put under more pressure and this will not make it magically easier for them to find a job. It will not fix someone's mental health or addiction issues. Putting resources into public services would do that, but Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are not interested in doing that. All it will do is make life harder for unemployed people, which is what the Tánaiste's speech, or parts of the Bill, are about. It is about performative cruelty which has marked this Government, in particular, since the start. It is about kicking the unemployed and immigrants and hoping people will be distracted by that and not see what the Government is up to every day of the week.

This was an attempt to say to the people who are struggling, who go out to work, who pay a lot of taxes and who are struggling to pay mortgages, childcare and bills and to heat their homes that the problem they face is lazy unemployed people. The number of long-term unemployed people is historically low, at about half of the EU average. Only 8,000 people are unemployed year after year, in the words of the Tánaiste. It is an act of mass distraction to say, "Look down here, not up here at the people we represent". Google walked through the front door of the Department of Finance before the last budget and asked for a tax change, which it got and which was worth €300 million for one company. The fast food giants got €400 million in tax breaks and the developers got another €300 million in the change to VAT. The Government is seeking to distract people from such massive corporate welfare.

I ask the Minister to confirm that the Tánaiste was engaging in disinformation when he told RTÉ that 52,000 people are long-term unemployed. The true figure is 38,900. The reality is that a large majority of those have been unemployed for less than two years and that the number unemployed for over two years has fallen by 80% in the past ten years.

My final point concerns older people, who are disproportionately unemployed because of discrimination that exists in the workforce. The system recognises that by exempting people aged 62 and older from having to engage in labour activation measures, but the Tánaiste went after them. They were also collateral damage. Many people who worked their entire lives now find themselves out of a job and the Tánaiste is going after them.

I am not sure whether the Minister will act on the Tánaiste's speech last Saturday evening. I saw some of it and thought for a moment I was watching Nigel Farage on the BBC or Donald Trump on Fox News. I hope we will not swing further to the right in this country. We have seen the damage that was done in other countries across the world, including Britain and America, and the division it creates.

I support helping unemployed people in getting back into employment. We should try to tackle long-term unemployment. There should be good activation measures so that people can get good jobs and have a reasonable quality of life. That should be the aim and we should continue to do that. That is where our focus should be, not on the type of populism we have heard. On this side of the House we are often accused of being ideologically hung up on different things. The Tánaiste's speech was the most ideologically right-wing economic speech I heard at an Ard-Fheis for a long time. What is the Fianna Fáil position on it?

There are increases in this Social Welfare Bill. All increases are welcome. The problem is that we are chasing higher and higher prices. That is the issue. We have had a number of debates on the cost of living in recent weeks, including yesterday.

I will say to the Minister and Government Deputies that they can keep chasing higher rents and higher electricity prices. However, the energy companies will make more profits, and the landlords and the developers will make more profits because the house prices are getting higher, which means the mortgages get higher.

A range of measures has been put forward and the Minister may disagree with some of them, and that is fine. A whole suite of measures has been put forward by various parties and individuals, a lot of which I agree with, but not all of them. We really need to bring down the cost of living and the cost of doing things and of going about your business in terms of insurance, energy, transport, etc. However, instead of that, we are driving costs up sky high. The social welfare increase is 3%. If we are talking about €10 on €300, it is about 3.3%. It does not keep up with all of those high costs, particularly energy and costs like it that which have gone up 9%, 10%, 12% in the past year. All increases are welcome but we are not doing enough because of runaway prices. We are starting in a different place.

There was a proposal for two-tier child benefit. There is an argument for and against it. However, the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, study showed that it would lift 55,000 children directly out of poverty from those households that are on the lowest incomes. While it did not make it this year, it should be kept under review. I know there is an argument for and against it and questions about the families just above the threshold. That has to be considered. However, it is worth reviewing again.

I want to raise the issue of temporary teachers. The pay-related jobseeker's benefit was to stop people falling off a cliff edge when they finished work as the next thing was their income was a quarter of what it was last week. That is obviously shattering for people. I have had teachers contact me who do not have permanent contracts. When it comes to the school holidays, they are back on jobseeker's benefit and they are falling off the cliff edge at that point. Their income is down to 20% or 25% of what they were getting when they were teaching. I know how the calculation is done in terms of PRSI weeks, etc., but I ask that Department officials look at that again because teachers and people in the education sector in particular are in a very difficult situation.

The last issue I want to raise is referred to as Xs and Os, or casual jobseeker's allowance or jobseeker's benefit. Earnings of €20 a day are disallowed. As far as I can remember, that has been the same for the last quarter of a century. Some people's work by its nature is casual and temporary. It might be one day this week and three days next week. We should be helping people to maximise that and maximise the benefit of it to make sure we help to make it viable for them to continue to do that, instead of them giving up altogether and signing on for five days. That would at least keep people in work. I ask that the €20 that is disallowed be increased. The rest is reckoned at 60%. I ask that the Department officials take note of that. It is a quarter of a century since that €20 threshold has been changed.

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh na tograí ar fad atá sa Bhille Leasa Shóisialaigh. Is tograí iad a léiríonn na luachanna atá ag mo pháirtí faoi aire a thabhairt dóibh siúd nach bhfuil an méid céanna acu is a bhfuil ag daoine eile sa sochaí, nach bhfuil sé de chumas acu an méid is mó ioncaim a bhaint amach dóibh féin, agus atá fágtha taobh thiar. Is iad sin na bunluachanna a bhaineann leis an bpoblachtánachas, agus cuireann sé áthas orm iad a fheiceáil á cur chun cinn ag Aire de chuid Fhianna Fáil sa Bhille seo.

I welcome the Social Welfare Bill and a number of particular provisions therein. I particularly welcome the very solid and strong focus on the likes of the working family payment and the child support payment, which are direct interventions from the State to continue to make work attractive for people - things that exist in our social welfare system at this moment in time and that are important to revive families that are working, not only economically - and I praise all those families who do work and who instil the ethic of work in their families - but also in terms of the supports that exist in our social welfare system to make sure those families are supported through things like the working family payment and the child support payment.

I also welcome the fact that we have now put in place a permanent cost-of-disability payment, and I want to pay tribute to the Minister's leadership in securing that particular item of expenditure, putting it in law so that it becomes a budget line in and of itself that future governments will have to continue to enhance and develop. That is in response to very direct pressures from people we all represent in this House.

There is continued progress being made on the carer's disregard threshold, which is a very welcome step forward. More and more people are now being taken out of that threshold. Of course, we need to continue to move at pace to bring more people out of it and to get rid of that overall means test in its entirety but there has been very solid progress made in that regard.

I know the Minister is particularly passionate about the need to solidly and directly address child poverty in our country at the moment. I welcome the steps that have been taken in this budget and the engagement the Minister has had with me in this House on what models we can look at in the future to further support those families and further bring down that proportion of children who live in poverty in our country. Whether that is through the means-tested child benefit model or the taxable child benefit support, I think we are now developing the corpus of evidence both across the ESRI and from the Department to allow us to identify the best policy interventions we can take to really deal with child poverty, and not only to deal with it in a way that gives those children in poverty a decent standard of living but also in a way that continues to show them that in this economy, we reward people who work and we see that a job is not just an economic value creator but it is also something that gives purpose and gives people a stake in society. That is something our social welfare system does at the moment and it is something that I think the Minister is continuing to enhance with the measures he is bringing forward. I look forward to continued progress in the sphere of child poverty, and I very much commend this Bill to the House.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill. The legislation delivers on the commitments made in budget 2027 and provides meaningful support to both individuals and families who continue to face cost-of-living pressures. I also welcome the increases in maternity benefit, paternity benefit, adoptive benefit and parent's benefit, together with improvements for carers. These measures recognise the invaluable role played by parents and families in our communities and provide practical support at important stages of our family lives. Importantly, the Bill also improves means-test arrangements and increases earnings disregards. This means people can work more while accessing important supports.

For communities across County Louth, this legislation will support pensioners, carers, people with disabilities, working families, and those on lower incomes at a time when many households continue to feel financial pressures. However, we cannot stand still. Reform is needed, and on a couple of occasions, I have raised the issue here of working families who, through no fault of their own, have suffered as a result of being ill. I am looking at the illness benefit. I remind the Minister of the case I brought to him last year where a widow who had lost her husband got sick and could not access illness benefit, notwithstanding that she had paid all of her PRSI. I remind the Minister of the small retailer in County Louth who had to go into hospital and close his business for six months because he could not access illness benefit. Reform is needed.

Many of the Opposition think it is absolutely right that no penalties should ever be faced if someone does not engage effectively and continuously with the employment services. Pathways to work is a way where the State needs to be encouraging people to engage and find work. In an economy that is at full employment, there are people who are not engaging with their local Intreo centre. They need to be brought on a journey. They need to be supported but when they do not engage, they need to be penalised. That is an unfortunate fact. Nobody wants to see it. We want to encourage people to work because it brings value and brings dignity. Working and leaving your house every day to go out to meet with people and contribute to society is not something that you should be ashamed of. It is something you should take pride in. When we talk about penalties, let us remind people that it was the Labour Party Minister, Joan Burton, who brought in the first penalties in 2011. We need a carrot at all times. We need to support our people but when the carrot does not work, the stick needs to come into action. We talk about putting money into people's pockets but we have to ensure the money goes into the right people's pockets.

I will address the elephant in the room.

Last weekend, at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis in my home city of Cork, the Tánaiste said the dole should be a safety net, not a way of life. He promised penalties for people who will not engage in employment schemes and that has been backed up already by the previous speaker from Fine Gael. The party is doubling down on that. The Taoiseach, however, has rejected those statements. Which is it? Are Fine Gael Party members, including its backbenchers, making those remarks as a statement or soundbite or do they reflect Government policy? Will the Minister clarify that for the House? The Minister who addressed the House earlier seemed to clarify it.

It is worth noting that 6,329 people are on jobseeker's allowance for more than ten years and, additionally, 30,000 are in receipt of it for more than five years. In total, that gives a relatively small number. Perhaps the policy should be to help those people. The Government should be examining why 30,000 people have been unemployed for more than five years. Is it an education problem? Is it that they have not engaged properly with supports? I do not believe it is a question of not properly engaging. Some people are just left behind by society. Some people need to be helped a little bit more rather than being kicked while they are down. If only there were a Minister for further education, or a previous Minister, who had planned for that. If only a previous Minister for further education had looked at this issue as a whole and asked what he could do to improve it. Instead, he was busy on TikTok.

We should not be lecturing people who are down and out and finding things difficult. I really do not know one person drawing the dole who is tripping the light fantastic. Nobody wants to be on the dole. Nobody wants to be on that amount of money, worrying about whether they will put food on the table or pay the ESB bill, gas bill or whatever other bill arrives. In fact, most people on the dole with whom I have engaged are afraid of the postman's knock and the next bill that is coming through their door.

The elephant in the room that the Tánaiste did not mention whatsoever is that figures released by the Department of Social Protection earlier this year show that 347,736 people with non-Irish nationality are receiving a social welfare payment. That includes child benefit and pensions and, of course, some of those people are working and paying their tax. Nobody should be criticised for that. However, in the interest of fairness and for the benefit of the House, will the Minister publish a full breakdown of every payment under every scheme by nationality and duration of claim? That would be a far fairer way to approach the issue in this House.

Independent Ireland will support the Bill. I do not think anybody in this House will say we should not give an extra €10 to pensioners this year. However, its provisions only scratch the surface. Prior to the election 24 months ago, the Minister's party promised the people of Ireland a State pension of €350 per week. That is what was promised to get the Minister and his colleagues sitting on the benches on that side of the House, but they have not delivered it. Shopping bills have increased by an average of 5% to 11%. The Minister gave an increase of €3 in the living alone allowance. I have listened to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Members talk about what a great budget it was and what a great social welfare package is being given. People will not get a pint of milk and a sliced pan for €3. It does not buy a pound of butter, which costs €4.81 at the moment. It buys approximately 2.5 kg of potatoes. It certainly will not buy a pint anywhere in the country. It buys approximately 1.6 litres of petrol at the moment. The Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Members saying this is a great budget and pointing to the fabulous increases in payments are not taking into account the cost of living. In the past 24 months, we have seen shopping bills go up by about 11% and an increase in fuel costs of 18.3%. There are now 500,000 people in this country in arrears on their ESB or gas bill. Where is the €350 per week the Government promised?

Widows and widowers, who are often the forgotten people in society, are faced with a deeply unfair situation. We know that when somebody passes away, approximately 80% of previous income is needed just to keep that household going. The cost of insurance, heating and lighting does not change. Too often, however, we see people's incomes decreasing by 50%. Will the Minister look seriously at a property tax exemption for pensioners? Currently, a deferral of payment is offered, at a 3% rate on top, for those on incomes up to €25,000, or €40,000 for a couple. That charge follows people into their grave. There are a number of people who should not be paying property tax after they reach 65 years of age. Will the Minister examine whether it is a possibility to introduce such an exemption in years to come? It is a very unfair tax for a lot of older people who are finding it tough to pay the bills, keep the lights on and heat their home.

I also highlight the situation of carers and those with a disability. Another promise Members opposite made before occupying their seats on that side of the House was that they would abolish the means test for carers. Where are they with that? We all understand what carers do for this country. I have often asked the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and other Ministers who is taking care of the carers, who do a tremendous service to the State. The Minister knows it, I know it and every Member of the House knows it. The means test must be abolished. If people make promises to get to that side of the House, the least they should do while they occupy those seats is fulfil those promises.

The colleagues who have spoken have all pointed out the virtues of this Bill. I endorse what they said and I congratulate the Minister on all the reforms he has introduced and the improvements he has made to the system since his accession to the Department.

As I have very little time, I will use it to address the question asked by a number of speakers about certain events that happened at the weekend and where my party stands on the matter. Let me be very clear about that. The Tánaiste apparently got a flash of inspiration on the road to Cork. It is easily known that he was not travelling on the Limerick road because it is so hazardous that a person would not have time to feel inspiration or anything else. That flash of inspiration led him to discover who was responsible for all the ills facing Irish society. Who were these great blockers who were preventing measures that would reduce or eliminate all our ills at a stroke? It was the poor, he found, specifically those who are long-term employed; the people with no money. Party leaders are supposed to talk about policy at their party conference. I do not know what type of policy this is. To me, it is not policy. It is a man in a suit pointing a finger at a very vulnerable group of people who cannot answer back and then claiming that is leadership.

If the Tánaiste did a small bit of research - it is not very difficult to find this out - he would discover, as Deputy O'Flynn and others have said, that only a tiny percentage of the social welfare budget is spent on the long-term unemployed. They have to share that budget with those in receipt of jobseeker's benefit, who, by definition, are short-term unemployed, short-term jobseeker's allowance recipients, people who are ill, pensioners, bereaved partners and all the ancillary benefits that attach to those various payments. In fact, if we were to reduce to zero the amount paid to the long-term unemployed and let them all starve, it would have very little impact on the overall budgetary figures.

This trick is not new or original. We saw Leo Varadkar engage in it as well. It is a very simply trick. It involves picking out a group of people who are small and voiceless enough that there will be no political risk to singling them out and promising a crackdown. What happens then? The audience cheers, the media get a headline and the Minister gets to look decisive. I do not want to unduly take up the time of the House and I am aware that my colleague Deputy Brabazon is speaking next. All I will say in conclusion is that when Leo Varadkar tried that stunt some years ago, it looked a bit weird and strange and everybody saw through it. Now it just looks utterly ludicrous and nakedly cynical.

There has been a lot of talk in the past week about social welfare and whether it is a good or bad thing.

I am of the firm belief that we must have a strong social welfare system that protects the most vulnerable in our society. Yes, those who can work should work but there are many who are unable to work or have limited capacity to work. It is the duty of the State to ensure that there is a safety net for those who are unable to work, those with a disability, the elderly and parents. I welcome the measures outlined in the Bill and the increases across the associated social welfare payments.

The programme for Government made a commitment to phasing out the means test for the carers' allowance during the lifetime of this Government. I urge the Department, the Minister for Social Protection and the Department of Finance to do everything possible on that commitment sooner rather than later. Many feel that the means test is a slap in the face and that the State is simply not doing enough to recognise the enormous contribution that carers make. There are people who dedicate their lives to caring for loved ones. By providing care that would otherwise have to be delivered through public services, carers also save the State the significant expense of €20 billion a year, by some estimates. That contribution deserves proper recognition.

I also welcome the introduction of the new €500 annual cost-of-disability payment. While it is not enough, it is a start. People who are living with disabilities often face additional expenses that the rest of us simply do not have to consider, be they transport, heating, specialist equipment or everyday living costs. This payment is a welcome acknowledgement of those challenges. It is long overdue and I hope it is something we can build upon in future budgets.

Another group I want to mention is people who live alone and particularly older people. Living alone is expensive. The electricity bill, the heating bill and the cost of maintaining a home all fall on one person when there is nobody to share those expenses with. We need to continue to look at how we can better support people living alone, especially as energy and household costs remain a significant burden.

We have a responsibility in this House to protect those who need it. The measures outlined in this Bill and the recent budget are welcome. I hope to see the Government going forward during its lifetime.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí ar fad as na ráitis agus na tuairimí a nochtadh sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo. Bhí sé suimiúil go raibh i bhfad níos mó daoine ag caint air seo ná mar a bhí le cúpla bliain anuas. Cuirim fáilte roimhe sin.

I thank all Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions. Deputy O'Reilly and I, as veterans of this debate, will note that there has been a lot more participation in this debate than there has been for some years. That has to be welcomed and I look forward to continuing interest.

The Bill underpins a budget for 2027 of €30.9 billion, which is an increase of 7% from last year, with over €1.15 billion in new measures. Many Deputies were making references to the fact that the budget did not provide for particular measures and particular increases, or that programme for Government commitments have not been delivered. It is simply not possible to include everything that I would wish in the Bill. All the suggestions have been noted but it is my intention to deliver three more social welfare budgets during my time as the Minister for Social Protection. The commitments within the programme for Government will be delivered on.

I just want the Members to know the overall impact of the budget. The ESRI post-budget analysis found that the changes to tax, welfare and childcare supports in budget 2027 are, on average, ahead of forecast price growth of 3%. They are broadly in line with forecast wage growth of 4.1% for 2027. Those in the lower income deciles gain the most, helped by the cost-of-disability payment and increases in the child support payment. In the context of the cost-of-living pressures that are currently facing people, it is important that we place this on the record of the House.

Deputy O'Reilly and others raised the issue of child poverty. I agree that one child in poverty is one too many. The social welfare budget package includes a number of targeted measures to this end, including increases in the child support payment, increases in the income threshold for the working family payment, an increase in the earnings disregard for a one-parent family and jobseeker transition payments. The holiday hunger programme, which was initially a pilot programme, will now become a permanent initiative next July, which will benefit 40,000 children.

A question was raised by Deputy O'Reilly and others about the introduction of the second tier of child benefit as a means to tackle child poverty. We launched a public consultation in May this year on a potential targeted child payment as well as a proposed working age payment. That consultation concluded in June. Submissions were received from representative bodies, advocacy organisations, service providers and members of the public. The complexity of this issue is shown where the ESRI has recently given us revised proposals as we work through the detailed design of a potential new scheme. The previous ESRI proposal and previously assigned model would potentially have seen up to 100,000 families losing out on existing payments. The new proposal corrects that but this demonstrates the complexity involved here. We do not have a magic wand but we are very focused in relation to it.

Deputies Brabazon, O'Dea and others raised the issue of the carers' allowance. Again, I will point out that within my first two budgets we have increased the carers' allowance disregard for singles and for couples by 84%. This means that a couple on over €126,000 will now be able to get a full payment without being in any way affected by the means test. In fact, they will be able to earn over €155,000 and still receive a partial payment. The programme for Government commits to the abolition of the carers' allowance means test over the lifetime of this Government. I think I have made very significant progress in these first two years but I also have an eye to existing carers. We have to support existing carers also.

I want to thank the Deputies for their comments on the cost-of-disability payment. That payment will be made in the week commencing 15 February 2027 to some 240,000 recipients at an estimated investment over €119 million. I acknowledge that many Deputies are concerned about groups that are included and not included in the payment next year such as disabled workers who are not in receipt of social welfare payment and pensioners. We had a very constructive meeting last week with a group representing disabled workers who are not in receipt of a social welfare payment and we will have further engagements with the Department of Finance on their issues. As I noted in my opening statement yesterday, respecting the feedback from a very extensive consultation process that has taken place we will now engage in a co-design process with disabled people and their representatives on how the payment will be structured and delivered from 2028 on. One query was raised yesterday in relation to the permanency of the cost-of-disability payment. I can confirm this is a permanent measure. I expect the co-design process to conclude in the first half of 2027. I will bring a recommendation to Government ahead of budget 2028.

A lot of contributions were made on the supports provided to the long-term unemployed. I clarified my position and that of the Government on that yesterday evening. Our public employment service is about helping people to take practical steps towards employment. It is delivered through Intreo and its partners. It brings together employment advice and income supports, and it helps jobseekers to identify the opportunities and to access the assistance they need. More than 50,000 people are currently receiving tailored support from dedicated job coaches through our Intreo partners to help them move towards employment. As I mentioned yesterday, the number of people who have been on the live register for a year or more is at its lowest level in two years at approximately 52,300, of whom 46,400 would actually receive a payment. Of those 52,300, a total of 17,700 have been on the live register for over a year. This is in the context of 2.84 million people who are currently in employment in the State. The live register is not a stock. It is a flow of people who are moving every week into and out of employment, progressing to training and education and into employment places. Some 58,800 people either entered or exited the long-term live register over the past 12 months. We are finalising the publication of the successor pathways to work strategy to strengthen efforts to support people who are long-term unemployed and who face barriers to enter the labour market.

I have reiterated the word "people" on many occasions. The discussion coming down and reducing people to numbers is not helpful nor is it fair. Behind those numbers are individuals, families and sets of circumstances that are different for every person.

For some, unemployment is a short-term experience. For others, it can be a much longer and more difficult journey, for reasons that are not always immediately apparent or obvious. Our responsibility as a Government is to ensure that the right supports, tailored opportunities and tailored pathways are there to help people who can and want to work. This is a responsibility I take very seriously and an approach my Department will continue to take.

We will not be able to deliver the benefits of the Bill without the extraordinary team that works for the Department of Social Protection across the country. Once again I thank them for their work, and I thank all Deputies who have thanked them for their work. All the employees of the Department are dedicated to their roles. All of us have regular engagement with those who person the Oireachtas line. I acknowledge all of them. This progresses the delivery of commitments that are set out in the programme for Government. This provides for increased resources to reinforce a strong social safety net provided by the social protection system. There is work to be done in terms of the programme for Government commitments and I look forward to further progressing them in the three social welfare Bills that remain. I commend the Bill to the House.

I move:

That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Social Protection, Rural and Community Development pursuant to Standing Orders 103(2)(b) and 188(1).

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"4.The Minister shall within six months of the passing of this Act lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas setting out the number of short-term letting properties that have registered with Failte Ireland having availed of the seven-year grandfather clause in 5.1 of the Planning Policy Statement on Short-Term Lettings."

I am sharing time with Deputy Ó Broin. The Minister and I have had several conversations about the importance of the Bill. The fact that we did not have the planning guidelines left the Oireachtas committee in the position that it could not complete pre-legislative scrutiny but I am not going to go over that.

The amendment relates to the seven-year grandfather clause. We are calling for a report within six months on the number of registered short-term letting properties availing of the clause. This would allow us to see whether the legislation is targeting the commercial investors with multiple properties or unfairly and disproportionately impacting small, family-run businesses and rural hosts. The amendment seeks to create transparency; establish how many properties benefit from the exemption; close the potential loopholes; allow for scrutiny of whether the clause weakens the planning restrictions; show the impact on housing supply, revealing the level of properties continuing in short-term letting use rather than potentially entering the residential market; provide evidence needed to determine whether the exemption is proportionate; and ensure that the legislation is operating fairly. More importantly, it will help to distinguish family-run accommodation from large commercial operators. A key provision we want in the legislation is a distinction between the small, family-run business and the large commercial operators that avail of tax incentives, loopholes and all of that. We are dealing with two very different categories here. We aim to improve Oireachtas oversight and enable early scrutiny and corrective action, where necessary, in respect of this legislation.

One of the challenges of doing Committee Stage in the Dáil is that there is a tendency for us to revert to Second Stage speeches. I am not going to do that in the few hours we have. There are two things I am going to try to do, and maybe the Minister and I can have a bit of an exchange as we go. The first is to raise some genuine concerns. Most of those concerns are about the planning policy statement that has been agreed by Cabinet. It does not fall under the Minister's remit and, therefore, my primary criticisms are actually of his counterpart, the Minister for housing, Deputy James Browne. This is the only opportunity we have to raise those concerns and at least bring them to the attention of Government. Second, there continues to be enormous confusion. Some of it has been caused by the slowness of publishing the policy statement and the genuine difficulty for people in getting their heads around it. Some of it has also been because Members in this Chamber have said things that I do not believe are factually accurate. It may be that they are confused themselves or that they have some ulterior agenda. I am urging the Minister to put as much clarity on the record as possible for all of those people who are trying to make sense of the legislation in front of us and the regulations, whether they are involved in the provision of tourism products or are concerned about the lack of rental supply in our housing system.

One of challenges with the grandfather clause is that, according to the report that the Housing Agency asked Indecon to produce, which I have here, a table on page 14 indicates from its analysis through Inside Airbnb of short-term letting registrations with the platform that about 70% of people currently trading on Airbnb in the State have been trading for seven years or more. The difficulty, therefore, is that if we have a grandfather clause that is just a blanket presumption to grant permission with a very small number of caveats, then the overwhelming majority of those people are going to get it unless, for example, they could contribute to very significant road traffic hazards, where there is a serious risk of flooding or where there is a small number of short-term letters inside the old rent pressure zones, RPZs, that had planning enforcement taken against them. What we are trying to do with this amendment is have some monitoring and some assessment of that so that we can have a proper debate into the future.

While I know that the Minister present is not the Minister with responsibility for planning, he is his proxy and he had that portfolio previously, so he is well acquainted. I want to understand why the Government has taken this approach. As I outlined in my Second Stage speech and as my colleague, Deputy Conway-Walsh, did much more eloquently than I did, we have always been very clear on what we want here. What we want, particularly in urban areas and where there is a shortage of rental supply and a significant homeless problem, is that there be a very tough regime whereby properties that were given planning permission for long-term residential occupation are brought back into long-term residential occupation.

In rural high-amenity areas, however, we want a more flexible approach and that approach should do two things. Where people are involved in family businesses, particularly in properties that are within the curtilage of their own homes and have never have been in the rental sector or are not suitable for it, we want them to be able to regularise and get on with their business. However, where we have commercial interests - for example, there is a company that is registered in London that has been snapping up family homes throughout the Connemara Gaeltacht for short-term lets - that should not be permitted. The local authorities should have the tools, flexibility and, crucially, staff to make that decision.

By having such a blanket grandfather clause, what the Government is essentially doing is allowing huge numbers of commercial operators that are illegally short-term letting what should be long-term residential homes to continue to do so. I just do not understand that because both the Minister, Deputy Burke, and the Minister, Deputy Browne, have repeatedly said that they want those types of property back in the housing system and that they are not the tourism product they are seeking to regularise and continue to operate. Why such a broad, wide and potentially dangerous grandfather clause? While we know that the Minister is not going to accept the amendment, I would like to hear what it is that both the Minister and his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Browne, are going to do in terms of monitoring the operation of this from 1 December to ensure that their twin aim, which as the Minister stated is to support a good-quality family tourism product in rural high-amenity areas while at the same time bringing properties that should be in long-term residential use back into residential use, is actually what happens.

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk on this very important Bill tonight, which I am against. It is a terrible attack on the democratic right of house owners to do what they wish with their own houses that they have bought, built, inherited or owned in one way or another. Many of these people have been doing Airbnb and short-term letting and have been involved in the tourism product we have in Killarney in County Kerry for many years and I am afraid that this is going to hurt many of those.

Tourism has been a critical part of the financial well-being of Kerry since way back in the late 1800s when Queen Victoria visited Killarney and Muckross House. Since then, tourism has developed all over the county. Short-term lets - Airbnbs - are a critical part of this product. There are many parts of Kerry that do not have hotels. We remember when the hotels in Killarney were filled with refugees and asylum seekers. We depended so much on the short-term lets to allow people to come and stay in Kerry and keep the taxis and buses going. They kept the jarvies going. They kept the fishers going. They are so important. There are parts of west Kerry that do not have enough hotels. For that reason, we rely so much on these people.

The seven-year rule has been mentioned in a negative way. It is called the grandfather rule or whatever. The seven-year rule is a fact of life in planning. When someone is at something or has something built for seven years or more, he or she has planning by default. On 10 February, I raised the seven-year rule with the Taoiseach on the Order of Business. I said:

I believe anybody who has been doing Airbnb for more than seven years is entitled to planning permission because they already have it. There are people who [I know] have been doing this for 20 years and more. Whatever the Government is bringing forward should allow the people who have been doing Airbnb to continue doing it as they were. If the Government wants to bring in laws for new people going into Airbnb [that is a different story].

The Taoiseach answered, when I put it to him about the seven-year rule:

Planning laws were there prior to this legislation. Any variation to commercial use requires planning permission. The Deputy referenced seven years plus. [The answer the Taoiseach gave me from where the Minister is sitting across from me was that I was] on the ball to a certain extent; that is the existing position, which is not changed by anything.

Now, this is going to happen to people no matter how many years they have been at it. We were told that populations of less than 20,000 would be exempted from this. To get registered with Fáilte Ireland, people have to get a letter from the planning authority saying that they are exempt and be able to prove that they have been at it. They must go to get the planning, and it is up to the planning authority. I have been involved in planning and helping people in Kerry for as long as I can remember, both with my father and as a councillor. Since I got elected as a TD, I have been involved in people getting planning through default doing whatever they were doing or having whatever they had for-----

Deputy, stick to the actual amendment.

Yes.

We have to do that.

Yes, that is what I am getting at. The nub of it is that all people should be asked is to prove that they have been at it for seven years or more. They should not have to get a letter from the planning authority. That is what I am saying. That is what the Government has changed. I believe that the local authority has enough to contend with with applications coming in - fresh applications and every different application - besides asking it then to vet applications for people just to get registered with Fáilte Ireland. This is where people are going to get caught. I am telling people to be very careful before they apply for retention planning because if someone applies for retention planning, I know that that means they are actually saying that they do not have planning and asking for it. I am telling the people who have Airbnbs - people who have been at it for seven years, 20 years and more - to be very careful before they go looking for a letter from the local planning authority because that is going to jeopardise the fact that they have been at it for so long. I am asking people to be very careful and to take legal advice on it.

Do they have planning if they have been at it for seven years or more or do they need to get a letter from the local authority? This is where I am asking people to be very careful. I appreciate, as much as anyone else, the great and valuable work these people and businesses have done for our communities in Kerry and, indeed, in all of the local communities around the country.

Deputy, stick to the amendment.

All right.

There are many speakers and amendments. Please stick to the amendment.

I am finishing up anyway, but it is very relevant. It is all relevant. I am saying to people to be very careful-----

I will decide if it is relevant, and it is not, so finish up if you cannot be relevant.

I am getting there.

A Cheann Comhairle, minutes are going to be very important in this.

Sorry, but the Deputy is going to finish up.

I did not interrupt Members-----

We did not say anything.

No, no. I am-----

I am asking people to be so careful before they look for retention planning just to get registered at this point in time. It is not fair, to my mind, what the Government is doing, trying to bring in laws-----

Deputy, that is not relevant to this amendment.

All right. I will come back in again later if-----

Yes, of course, but stick to the amendment you are speaking to. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

That is the rule under Standing Orders.

A Cheann Comhairle-----

No, Deputy, it is not your turn. It is actually Deputy Hearne's.

I am sorry.

Stick to the amendment, Deputy.

Yes, I hear the Ceann Comhairle.

At the outset, I hope that the Minister can give a genuine and considered response to the issues that we raised previously. In terms of the amendments, I hope that he takes them on board because it will be very difficult for us to support this legislation if the amendments are not brought on board. The key concern of the Social Democrats is to ensure that there is a proper system of regulation put in place, one that balances the needs of tourism with housing needs. Our concern is that the Minister has been dragged into this. He has delayed and been dragged into it because of the requirement to meet the EU timeline but he is really not wholeheartedly behind what he said is trying to do and, in particular, what his own Government's national housing plan sets out. As I said the last day, this Bill actually breaches the Government's own housing plan. How can the Government introduce legislation that is actually contradicting its own national housing plan? That plan, as I set out in a previous contribution, makes it very clear that restrictions will apply to towns with populations greater than 10,000 but the Minister has now changed that to 20,000. I want clarity on that because it seems to me that there is a contradiction there.

The other issue and the biggest concern that I have is around enforcement. Are we actually going to see genuine enforcement of these restrictions? I am also concerned about the issue raised earlier by Deputy Ó Broin in relation to the grandfather clause, which is essentially a get-out clause. It is another example of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael making up policy that sounds great but when it comes to practice, they provide opt-outs so that they are not really applying the policy, legislation and subsequent law equally. I am concerned about this because we have had a planning requirement in place since 2019. I went back and looked at the figures for the number of owners of short-term lets who had applied for planning permission between 2019 and 2024 and it was only 426. Only 186 applications were granted planning permission, so there are tens of thousands of short-term lets operating across the country with no planning permission. They have been in breach of the law for seven years? What is going to change now? The Government is going to introduce a register. My concern is about where the actual planning legal requirement will be when people make their declarations. Will that be evidenced? I hope that the Minister has made a change to require evidence of planning permission or planning exemption achieved.

The other issue in relation to the grandfather clause is important. We should have evidence to see what impact this Bill has on properties. The Government said, and it made a commitment in its programme for Government, that short-term lets were going to be restricted to ensure that housing would be available for people. I am very concerned that this Bill is setting out overtly to achieve that but will not achieve it in practice.

One thing the Minister said last week that I would agree with was that we should all co-operate and work together. Is he going to accept some of our amendments here tonight? That is how co-operation works, or it is certainly the way it has ever worked in the real world.

I am standing up tonight for the protection of Airbnbs in rural communities. Once we sign into law the planning aspects of this, it is game over for many of them. It is game over for most of them unless there are new ones setting up. I listened to people talking in here last week and in fairness to Deputy George Lawlor, he was very much to the point. He was the best speaker here and Deputy Conway-Walsh was very good as well. The bottom line, though, is that when it came to pressing the button, he pressed the button the wrong way and was not able to convince the rest of the members of his party to do the same. That is very disappointing. The Social Democrats are so far removed. They have no clue how tourism works, yet their leader is from the capital of tourism. Maybe the lads from Kerry might fight with me on that but west Cork is the capital of tourism.

Towns of 10,000 people-----

To think that Holly Cairns has not been able to explain to her party and give it an understanding of rural tourism is shocking beyond belief.

Deputy-----

It is shocking-----

Deputy, the same goes for you-----

It will not be forgotten in west Cork.

The same goes for you, Deputy. Stick to the amendment's content.

I am talking about the amendment. I want to begin by acknowledging the amendment tabled by Sinn Féin. I can see the direction that party is going in and I recognise the concern behind this amendment. It asks the Minister to report on the number of short-term letting properties registered with Fáilte Ireland that have availed of the seven-year grandfather arrangement in the planning policy statement. That is useful information to have but I would make one very important point. There is a fundamental difference between reporting on how many operators have benefited from the Government's arrangement and actually giving established operators the legal certainty they need right now. That is where I have difficulty with the approach.

I have been contacted by people throughout west Cork and other parts of rural Ireland who have operated holiday accommodation for years. Some have been operating for seven or eight years while others have been doing it for 15 or 20 years. These are established businesses. They are not people who suddenly decided last week to buy up a row of houses and put them on Airbnb, as some parties in here - those that have no understanding of tourism in rural Ireland - think. They are families who have invested in their properties, paid their taxes, welcomed visitors and contributed to the local economy. Now they are facing uncertainty about whether they will need another planning permit simply to continue what they have been doing for years. That is the issue we should be addressing.

We have already had considerable confusion about the seven-year rule. The Taoiseach previously suggested to me in the Dáil that somebody who had operated an Airbnb for seven years did not need planning permission. Is that the case tonight? No, it is not. Now we see that this Bill says that they will need to apply. Were we conned? Were we misled here in the Dáil? Has the Taoiseach come in to correct the record of the Dáil? These are very serious matters because tens of thousands of people are going to be put out of business. Even the companies that are out there protecting Airbnbs were all conned. I have been told that. I have been inundated with messages from my own constituency, never mind anywhere else, from people who were misled by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. They were promised that this would not have planning in it in relation to the seven years and over. It is written all over the document. If the Minister wants to co-operate with people tonight, he should accept our amendments. These organisations believed the Government and told their people that because that is what they were told.

Now they are in a fury because they realise they were conned. Everybody was conned in this game. The Minister was too. He was led up the garden path. It is no wonder he was giving out about Independent Ireland all weekend at the conference. There were texts coming out left, right and centre. They did not know if it was an Independent Ireland conference or a Fine Gael conference, they were so obsessed by us.

Try to stick to the amendment.

I am sorry; I forgot about that actually. The Government's planning policy statement proposes a presumption in favour of retention permission for certain established operators, but a presumption in favour is not a guarantee. It is not a statutory exemption and does not provide the same certainty as a clear legal entitlement to continue an established use. That distinction is fundamental. A family that has operated a holiday cottage for 15 years should not have to rely on different interpretations of Government policy to establish whether they can continue their business. They need clarity.

That brings me directly back to the Sinn Féin amendment, which asks for a report on the number of properties availing of the grandfather clause. What exactly is being called grandfathering? If an operator still has to apply for retention permission, pay the relevant fees, wait for planning decisions and face the possibility of refusal, that is not the same as a permanent statutory exemption. It may be a more favourable planning policy, but it is not the legal certainty that many established operators are looking for. That distinction matters when we are talking about how many businesses have benefited. Are we counting people who have obtained permission, people who have submitted applications, people who have been told they may qualify or people whose established use has been protected? Those are different things.

I remind the House of the type of accommodation we are dealing with. In beautiful west Cork and along the western seaboard - I have had many people ringing me from all over the country - we have holiday cottages, converted farm buildings, small family-operated properties and accommodation developed specifically for tourism. Many of these properties have been providing accommodation for years. They support local restaurants, pubs, shops, attractions and employment. They support local employment specifically for a lot of women who are trying to provide a side income to educate their children and keep the family home going. Some of them could never realistically provide permanent residential accommodation. A small tourist cabin is not necessarily a family home. A converted traditional farm building is not automatically suitable for long-term occupation. A property used by a family for part of the year and rented to visitors for the remainder is not the same as an ordinary residential house. Permanently removing these distinctions from the rental market matters. It matters when deciding if a planning restriction is necessary. It matters when considering the effect on housing. It matters when determining if established operators should receive grandfathering protection.

I acknowledge Deputy Gogarty's work on this legislation. It is clear from the amendment he has tabled that he has examined the practical circumstances of different operators in considerable detail. He has recognised the position of small family providers. He has addressed accommodation that is used privately for part of the year and by visitors seasonally. He has considered accommodation associated with the family home. Those are precisely the types of distinctions that must inform any meaningful grandfathering arrangements. I expect that we will all co-operate and work together. Are we going to see that tonight, or is the Minister going to oppose all these amendments? A simple count of properties benefiting from a policy statement will not, by itself, tell us if the Government has dealt fairly with the different types of established accommodation. I am disappointed with the approach taken by the Labour Party, when they voted against us last week, and in particular by the Social Democrats. There has been plenty of discussion about protecting housing. Nobody disputes the seriousness of the housing problem. However, we need more than a watery Opposition and political fence-sitting when it comes to the actual consequences for rural businesses. It is easy to talk about returning properties to the housing market.

Are you going to stick to the amendment?

I am speaking about the Sinn Féin amendment. You have to ask if the particular property was ever realistically part of that market in the first place. There is a world of difference between an investor buying up ordinary residential houses in a city and a family operating an established holiday cottage in rural Cork. The legislation needs to recognise that difference. Otherwise, we risk applying an urban housing solution to rural tourism accommodation without properly examining the consequences.

I turn to the recent European judgment. We have spoken at length with our MEP, Ciaran Mullooly. This is not dictated from Europe. It is a different policy completely to the one dictated from Europe. This is an Irish-driven solution. Last week I spoke about places like Durrus or Courtmacsherry feeding into the crisis in Dublin. It is outrageous what the Government has done here. Ciaran Mullooly has made that clear because he has spoken to his counterparts in Europe. While they want a register, they do not want to dictate to or close down businesses, which is what the Government is doing here. Smartflats also makes the question of proportionality particularly relevant. Planning restrictions on short-term letting may be justified but they must satisfy applicable requirements of necessity and proportionality. The European Commission's proposed affordable housing Act expressly recognised grandfathering as a possible and less restrictive alternative to prohibitions on property use. It demonstrates that grandfathering is a recognised policy option when the Government is considering how to regulate established uses. That is important in the context of this amendment. The question is not simply how many operators have benefited from a Government policy. The question is whether the policy provided adequate and proportionate protection in the first place.

Returning to the Sinn Féin amendment, I understand what Deputies Conway-Walsh and Ó Broin are trying to achieve. They want to establish how the seven-year grandfathering arrangements will work. That is a legitimate question, and I acknowledge the direction of their amendment. However, we should not have to wait six months after the legislation is passed to discover whether established businesses have been adequately protected. We can identify the uncertainty now. We know that a planning presumption is not the same as an exemption. We know the established operators are concerned about having to apply for permission. We know that some of these properties have been providing tourism accommodation for many years. We have brought forward our own proposals in 12 amendments. The Minister said he wants to co-operate, so I look forward to him agreeing to most of them dealing with the permanent grandfathering. I will address those in detail when the relevant amendments come before the committee. For now, I ask the Minister a straightforward question. Why should an established operator who has been providing tourist accommodation for seven, ten or 15 years have to go through another planning process simply to continue that established use, where the appropriate safety and environmental safeguards can be shown to exist? This is the central issue. While I acknowledge the purpose of the Sinn Féin amendment, I want the Government to go beyond reporting on this problem. I want it to provide established operators with the certainty they need.

I will be brief. I am disappointed that we are having this debate in the House and not in a committee where we can tease out all the issues that should be dealt with. The Minister has been talking about this for a long time. He met the organisations and the people. Commitments were given by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Independents supporting them that they would not use a sledgehammer to crack a chestnut, which is what they have done here. They extended the registration period for more than a month, which is the busiest month of the year for people. Maybe it is not for the providers as they might not have many holiday makers, but Christmas is a busy time. There are end-of-year accounts if they are farming and whatever else. Some of them are calving early as well. It is a busy time, so a month is not an adequate period of time. It should definitely be extended to three months to give people more time.

The seven-year clause is there. We have been debating that for decades at council and planning meetings, at the side of the road and everything else when something has been in existence for seven years. Now the Government is trying to suck them in, like a spider drawing them into the web to pounce on them. That is what they are at and people can see that.

The Government is completely misguided in its belief that there are tens of thousands of housing units throughout the country in short-term lets. Nothing could be further from the truth. I visited Tomás O'Keeffe's lovely building early yesterday morning. It is a restored farmhouse right in the middle of a farmyard. It is suitable for people who like that and come to visit. It is a great addition to the area for rural tourism. I could also mention a house in Dundrum in the middle of farmyard. Those properties cannot become living units for a normal family. It just will not happen. It is used by the family in these cases for anniversary masses, reunions and things like that. They then rent it out as non-farm income to supplement and augment their farm income which - my God - has been decimated enough with the CAP coming down the road. The Government wants to get involved in wars and armaments and cut money from the CAP. I am totally opposed to the way the Government has gone about this.

I will speak to the amendment. It deserves support because what the Government is doing with the grandfather clause, which I call the great-grandfather clause, is to give commercial operators an amnesty.

It is only fair that the Oireachtas knows the scale of that. That is reasonable because this legislation will not address the Indecon report finding that 16,870 housing units or homes are being used as commercial short-term lets in areas of high housing demand. We need to see exactly where this legislation leads us to in six months because the way this has been handled has not been acceptable. The enterprise committee did pre-legislative scrutiny that it could not conclude because of some sort of a bun fight that was going on between the Department and the Department of housing in relation to agreeing the planning statement. The way the planning statement was handled was deeply cynical. At the eleventh hour, with no Oireachtas scrutiny at all, it was just presented to the Cabinet as a fait accompli. Then - wham, bam - we come in here tonight and we do this all in four hours. We know this is being rushed because the Minister has to meet an EU deadline. That is why the Government is rushing this through in the way that it is. This could have been done four years ago. It could have been done two years ago. As far as I recall, it was in the previous programme for Government.

The fact of the matter is that we need to see the exact criteria that are going to apply to the seven-year threshold and to the grandfather clause. We need to see what exactly the effect of those criteria will be. I believe they will effectively, ipso facto, allow illegal short-term lets that are not complying with planning to get the presumption of planning permission to operate outside the parameters of the law, as it already stands. It is basically giving them a free pass. That is not acceptable because the stated purpose of this legislation is to get homes in high-demand areas that are being used as short-term lets, and should be part of our long-term rental supply, back into the long-term rental market to deal with the housing crisis.

The Minister might address the fact that there are a number of significant errors in this Bill. Deputy Lawlor, my colleague, will speak on this later. There are errors in the Bill, as published, that have not yet been corrected and we are now on Committee Stage. Based on our analysis and the work we have done, we believe that unless some of these errors are corrected, they may make the Bill very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

This is a sensible amendment. The Minister for housing claimed that the Bill provides for the strongest system of regulation of short-term lets in Europe. I do not believe that to be true. Certainly, for those of us on this side of the House who have gone through it, because of the grandfather clause or, as I have called it, the "great-grandfather clause", and because of the two-year bedding-in period, there are a number of holes in this.

Those of us who have issues with the Bill believe it will be largely ineffective because of the system of self-certification and because of the holes we have found. There are also criticisms of the Bill from people who believe short-term lets should not be regulated at all. What we all agree on is that we should have a report laid before the House within six months to see clearly where we are at six months after its enactment.

There are 71 amendments to deal with here today. There are people around the country and in the Gallery who want us to get on with the work. We are over half an hour into the debate and we have not dealt with one amendment yet. If we keep going this way, we will do nothing for the people. The people that I am talking about, in particular, are the people in Kerry who are looking for us to move these amendments. I am going to be so brief, it will be sensible and brief. I support the amendments that are put forward. I want to us to move on.

I just want to clarify one matter. A previous Deputy spoke about an amnesty. There is no such thing as an amnesty in what the Minister is proposing. Everyone is to apply for planning. There is no EU deadline either. This is a Government-set deadline.

We have 71 amendments. If we all stand up here tonight and make big flowery speeches, we will do nothing for this sector. The people who are here representing the organisations are horrified at the length of time it is taking us to deal with one amendment. The people at home who are watching what is going on in here are horrified to think we are talking and doing nothing. I want to move on with getting to the important amendments, having spoken to the Minister. I want to have the votes as necessary and drive this on. I want to try to work for people and not be making big flowery speeches about nothing.

I am only following the-----

God, sure I am not saying a bit to you.

God, I know you would not say that.

Is it me, so? Is it those of us who are standing by the people of Ireland and tourism?

We have 71 amendments.

We are well entitled to stand by our people.

We have 71 amendments to move.

We are all entitled to speak and we will.

We have 71 amendments to move.

I am standing by my people of west Cork and the Deputy can stand by his of Kerry and make up his own mind.

Seventy-one amendments.

Okay, I am following the order of the House.

I want to move the amendments.

I call Deputy Richard O'Donoghue.

A lot of them will not be improving amendments anyway.

Hold on now, Michael. I will not talk about flowery speeches because I am in construction and I understand what I am talking about. We might look at the way that Deputy Michael Healy-Rae should be still over in the Government because he has been voting with it since he left, even when he sat back over here. Now, we will speak to the amendment and we will get rid of the flowery words. It is very simple. Speaking to the amendments, we will look at the grandfather agreement and at the proposal to give people an extra month to apply for this. Will the Minister come into the real world? I believe the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, probably does want to do something about it but the Minister, Deputy Browne, will not allow him.

I advise Deputies to try to get an engineer or an architect in the next six months, never mind the next month. I deal with this on a daily basis. I deal with planning permission and building. I build. We are looking at the lack of people to do applications, the cost of doing the applications and the viability of doing the applications. Then we look at the seven-year rule that people are talking about. The seven-year rule means that if you apply for planning permission after the seven-year rule, you have to be granted a permission but you have to regularise what you have done once nobody had objected to it in the seven years that the building was there or the business was going on there. That is what the seven-year rule is, and that is simplified. The problem here is that the Minister is looking to regularise every person who has been doing this in the past seven years. We are talking about the same people who rolled up their sleeves and welcomed people from Ukraine. The Government filled every hotel in Ireland with people. The people who put out for the tourism sector of this country were those with the short-term lets. The people who welcomed people into this country to help the tourism industry were those with the short-term lets. What we are talking about here is a realistic time.

I will outline what Minister should also be looking at if he wants people to regularise their units. To qualify under the current planning regulations - we are moving from SR 6 - you not only have to qualify under the building itself, and under the percolation if you have an external percolator, but you also have to qualify for road distance on an entrance coming into it. Even if there was no application made or no accidents recorded on the premises where you are, this is where the regularisation comes into it. This is why the Bill should have gone to the committee. As I said to the Minister yesterday, we are debating all the amendments in here today, but it should have been done in a committee.

I would like to see how many Members who are talking about the flowery stuff voted for it not to go to the committee. That is where we should be dealing with this to get the problems sorted out before we bring it to this House and have it guillotined. I am going to sit down on this, and we are going to look at the different amendments to make sure we try to cover as many of them as we can. When someone stands up to say they want to talk about all the amendments when they were the one person who stopped it going to committee in the first place, then I have a concern. The same person votes with Government even though he has moved to the other side of the House. This is what I am talking about; talking out of both sides of the mouth. Let us look at the record here. Who was really trying to help is the likes of people from Independent Ireland. I have to admit that Fine Gael spoke long and hard enough about it at its Ard-Fheis and we are here today talking to the Minister again. It is like déjà vu.

It is the first amendment and normally with the first amendment people tend to elaborate a little beyond the reasoning so we have to allow a little bit of leeway. This amendment is referring to something that is not even in the Bill because the Minister for housing is bringing in the changes. The core eligibility criteria for the seven-year rule include continuous operation for at least seven years, a clean enforcement record, safety and infrastructure standards and occupancy compliance. Then there are disqualifiers such as a local housing needs assessment and disproportionate concentration. Basically, it streamlines it, and they are hoops to jump through anyway. If all those criteria are met, a person is exempt from submitting architectural floor plans and elevations. They only have to give the approximate floor area and a brief description of the details, so it is a slightly less onerous process, but still onerous enough. For a lot of the places that have been operating for more than seven years, the concern is about the ones that are operating in tourism towns. These are the types of premises that family members own and would not dream of letting out as commercial landlords. That is what we are trying to protect. If we had just gone with the EU legislation, we could have had a very simple registration position but the Government was trying to merge the housing and tourism issues and trying to deal with the urban operators who are milking the system by having short-term lets when they should be letting properties out with proper Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, adherence and freeing up houses in the market. I fully support that because it makes a lot of sense. However, as I said previously, and as Deputy McGrath just referenced, the Government is trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer. I do not think anyone in this Chamber should really oppose the amendment because all it is doing is looking for a report. There are valid reasons people would apply under the seven-year rule for less onerous restrictions. It is not any conspiracy theory of people trying to get out of renting under the RTB through the back door. It is not, pure and simple, so let us get on with the legislation and debate the more intricate bits that we need to protect people in rural communities.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions.

I will outline the technical response to amendment No. 1. While the policy objective of the amendment is clearly understood, the drafting is technically incorrect and could give rise to legal operational uncertainty. The Bill does not provide for a grandfathering clause. Section 47 introduces a new section 83A to the Planning and Development Act 2004, which grants two years' grace for operators outside built-up areas with a population of under 20,000 to regularise their planning status. The national planning statement recognises rights under the planning code, whereby if no enforcement action has been taken by the planning authority for at least seven years, an operator may apply for retention permission to regularise an established but unauthorised use. This provides a pathway for long-established short-term rental accommodation to achieve planning compliance and participate in the registration system.

The short-term letting registration scheme has been designed to comply with requirements of the EU short-term rental regulation, which establishes a harmonisation registration framework across the Single Market. Under Article 4(3)(a) of the regulation, registration procedures must operate on the basis of declarations made by hosts. Article 4(3)(b) further requires member states to provide for outlying registration procedures that allow for the automatic and immediate issuance of a registration number. Article 5(1)(b) requires hosts to declare whether the accommodation is subject to an authorisation scheme and, where applicable, whether the necessary authorisation has been obtained. In Ireland, authorisation to provide short-term rental accommodation is determined by compliance with the planning code. The regulation does not provide for different treatment based on the length of time a host has been operating. As a result, the duration of the operator's activity in the market cannot form part of the registration process nor can it be used as a basis for determining eligibility for registration. Accordingly, the registration process cannot require a host to provide information on how long they have been operating. Rather, in accordance with the regulation, hosts are required to declare whether they have the necessary authorisation to offer short-term rental accommodation services.

Regarding some of the comments that have been well-made by Deputies, I can appreciate that people are coming from very different perspectives and backgrounds here. As a rural TD and tourism Minister, I bring to the table concerns about our rural economy and areas where the availability of tourism accommodation is challenged and trying to ensure that we do not create unintended consequences for the tourism sector. I am also very aware of the acute housing needs in society. As a Government, we cannot stand by and watch housing units being rented out for one, two, or three weekends a month in areas where people cannot get secure housing accommodation or cannot get long-term rental accommodation. That is an absolute need that society has to balance. The Government cannot stand by and not take action and let 10% growth in the sector carry on year after year without any regulation. It is incumbent on Government to act. However, we have to act in a balanced way and that is where we hear both sides of the debate coming to the forefront here. We can see with this amendment Members supporting it with very different perspectives coming to the table.

There are a few comments I would like to put on the record. I understand that there is a lot of concern in relation to the different perspectives. First, let us consider someone in a population area of under 20,000 in the short-term letting market and letting out accommodation for more than seven years but who does not have planning compliance. I have been very clear that the person has to pay a registration fee of €25 to Fáilte Ireland and has two years to be compliant.

Second, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has drafted a planning statement whereby it states very clearly that there shall be a presumption in favour of granting planning permission. It is also very clear in relation to the retention process that we have from last September a streamlined administrative process which clearly states that the new SI 500/2026 provides for detailed plans or maps not being required where this is a wholly administrative process for applications where no additional works are proposed. There is a streamlined process with a €25 registration fee and two years to carry out regularisation. That is a fair, balanced and proportionate approach for people who are engaged in the short-term letting market in areas where tourism accommodation is needed. It is very important to drive that huge economic growth that we have in many rural areas. If they have been operating for less than seven years, they still avail of the streamlined administrative process and get planning permission. The Government has a call to make, and this is key in deciding what the metric is. I hear a lot of voices across the Chamber but I do not hear many identifying exactly what Members want.

Many of them said that they want to protect rural businesses and communities. How do we do that? No one identified the rule that will lead to us protecting rural businesses and communities.

The original threshold identified by the Government, about which I had considerable concern, was towns with a population of 10,000. That would have brought an additional 29 towns into the reckoning. Some of those towns are in areas in which accommodation is needed for our tourism sector. As the Minister for tourism, working with the Minister, Deputy Browne, I have to balance those needs. That is why the Government, through discussions, came forward with a threshold of a population of 20,000, which includes 25 towns and cities. We believe that provides a greater balance.

Deputies said that tens of thousands of units are going to come back through this process. I do not believe that for one minute. We are not going to get tens of thousands of units back. I have seen no data to suggest that will be the case. However, in some of the 25 areas where housing demand is acute, I expect we will get a significant proportion of accommodation units back into the long-term rental market. That is what we are aiming to do. That is what the design is for.

A Deputy asked why people should have to go forward into another planning process if they have been in operation for seven years. If people have been in operation for seven years, they do not have planning permission. That is the key issue. We are not asking someone to go forward into another planning process. They are not complying with the law right now. Surely we should expect people to be in compliance with the law of the land. It is critical that we, as a State, have tourism information data to allow us, as policymakers, to plan and decide on the policies that our tourism sector needs for the future. That is good for our tourism operators. Many of them welcome this legislation because it will provide valuable data to assist us in the future.

I appreciate Deputies' bona fides. I am a rural TD. I know that these balancing issues are tricky. I know that to weave a cohesive path through the Dáil is difficult. I accept that people are concerned about the timing. I understand that. However, I am limited, too. I am trying to work with my Government colleagues and another Department. I am not in control of everything. We have tried to work with the committee as best we can, but I cannot control the operation of everything within the system. We have made our best effort. We had a good communication campaign and there will be a second in September. I have met many operators. The team in the Department has had many round-table discussions with stakeholders over recent years. This has been proposed for a long time. We have achieved a fair balance.

Unfortunately, for the reasons I have given, I am unable to accept the amendment. However, I thank Deputies and appreciate the bona fides that everyone is bringing to the table.

I have two brief comments and two queries to help with clarification. The amendment is trying to address a challenge. If the Minister were to come to my constituency in Dublin Mid-West, which is suburban Dublin, and I took him to Cabra in the north inner city, but also if I were to bring him to part of the Cooley Peninsula or the Connemara Gaeltacht, I would show him homes. They are not at all the rural businesses we are talking about and trying to support in different ways. These are homes that were built for residential occupation and that have been acquired not by local families or communities but by commercial interests, which, in many instances, are not rooted in those communities. If they have been operating for more than seven years, they will, under the terms of the planning policy statement, have a presumption of a grant. The difficulty with that is that it runs completely contrary to the Government's stated aim of wanting those properties back in residential occupation.

I agree completely that we are not talking about tens of thousands of properties. I have always thought that people on the Government side and the Opposition side who use those types of figures are doing us all an injustice. However, having a system whereby commercial operators, which have sucked family homes out of the residential market, whether in urban or rural areas, are given this seven-year period simply makes no sense. I suspect it will be open to legal challenge by somebody who has been operating for six or five years. The seven-year rule is arbitrary and is not linked to planning enforcement. The Minister is correct that just because somebody has been operating outside the planning process for seven years does not mean that he or she is planning compliant. In fact, the opposite is the case. There may be genuine difficulties in that regard.

There is another problem with the 10,000 and 20,000 thresholds. I am not questioning the Minister's bona fides, but I have genuine concerns. The 10,000 threshold means that Maynooth is no longer captured by the stricter regime, and it should be. In residential parts of Maynooth, there is significant short-term letting in properties that were recently built for long-term residential occupation. That is a real problem.

Let us consider some of those very high tourism areas. There are Deputies present who represent those communities in counties Kerry and Cork and they have far better knowledge of them than I do. However, I should not be allowed to form a fund with some people in Dublin and go into An Daingean, Tralee, Killarney or wherever else and start buying up homes on housing estates and letting them in the short term. I should not be allowed to do that. However, if I have been doing that for seven years, I have a get out of jail free card. That causes difficulties for the genuine family-based tourism businesses in those areas. The threshold, whether it is 10,000 or 20,000, is completely arbitrary. Almost all of us are united on the fact that it is not based on anything.

The Minister has dealt with one of my questions, but I want him to be specific. Some people think the retention processes outlined in the circular he mentioned, and which I have in front of me, only applies to people availing of the grandfather clause. In his response, he made it clear that is not the case. It will apply to all of those who are applying for planning permission. If we were crystal-clear about that, it would clear up some of the confusion.

The other issue is that nobody knows what the planning fees will be. The application form for retention is very short. I have it in front of me. I have no issue with that. In fact, it is helpful. That there are no required drawings or inputs from architects or engineers should be of some comfort to people. However, the fees are still unclear and, therefore, if the Minister could provide any clarity, I would appreciate it.

I thank the Deputy for his comments. The streamlined process applies across the board. I want to provide clarity on that.

It is for everybody.

It is for everyone. The average retention fee is approximately €125. That will be paid through the local authorities, depending on their charging policy in that regard.

I hear what the Deputy said. There are difficult challenges for policymakers when we are trying to find a strong balance for a proposal that has significant teeth to deliver, particularly in those 25 towns I mentioned with a population of over 20,000. However, in consultation with the Attorney General, I was advised that there is an established legal principle to the effect that I cannot differentiate in respect of the seven years in towns with populations of over 20,000 and under 20,000. The advice was that I could not offer a seven-year process for towns with populations of less than 20,000 whereby they could have a streamlined process for regularising their planning and not allow it in towns with populations of over 20,000.

Nor would I have argued that, but that is a separate issue

We are trying to balance the rural economy and accessible accommodation with having to allow for a process in towns with a population of over 20,000. I am being frank and honest. Those are the challenges you meet when you are trying to deliberate on these policies. That was the established legal principle I was advised of on that point.

I know that people give out about the thresholds. I am disappointed that I have not heard anyone else come forward with an alternative. It is easy for us to say that we need to protect local businesses and the families who are bringing in a small bit of revenue through Airbnb to put their kids through college but that we do not want the commercial operator up the road partaking of that behaviour. Those are nice thoughts, but from a legal perspective I have not seen anyone put forward such an amendment. Of all the amendments before us, I see none that puts forward a mechanism to deliver on some of these issues. I have brought forward a clear pathway that protects tourism in rural Ireland.

If someone is in a town, village or settlement of under 20,000 people, they have a clear mechanism to get planning with a positive presumption on board, a streamlined process, a €25 fee and two years to do it. That is very fair, and no matter how long we debate this and look at it, it will be very difficult to get a measure as balanced as that. However, I appreciate that there are people in this House who think I am not going far enough. They almost have a zero-tolerance approach to Airbnb and short-term lets. There are also people here who think I have gone too far. That is healthy democracy. We can debate in the House but I have to make a call on it. I appreciate the sentiments from people along the way.

I appreciate that Members can make their contributions, but I called Deputy Ó Broin and the Minister replied, and then I got three other indications. Can we take it that, on this round, that would bring us to a conclusion on the matter? I ask Members to think of the rest of the amendments.

Deputy Collins indicated, as did Deputy Hearne.

I can speak on the next one.

I am not ruling the Deputy out. I am just trying to get some balance. We will also hear from Deputy Conway-Walsh and then ask the Minister to respond before we put the question.

I noted some of the comments that the Minister made. He said that he was not agreeing with all of the amendments. Is it just that he is not agreeing to this one? We know what the answer is going to be for the rest of them if he is not going to agree to this. He asked last week for co-operation. Amendments are a way forward.

The Minister also said that none of us was telling him exactly what we wanted, but it is very clear. We know what we want. We know how rural tourism works. We are not fools; we are around a long time. In fairness, the Minister said he was a rural TD. I believe that this is not what he wants, but he is going to have to sell it because the Minister, Deputy Browne, cracked the whip.

The Minister, Deputy Burke, referred to a good communication campaign. That is wrong and he cannot tell Members, the people in the Gallery or the audience - a lot of people have told me that they are watching this debate - that it means something. It was one of the worst Bills brought before the Dáil in its history, or certainly in my ten years here. It was stopping and starting and starting and stopping and nobody ever knew what it meant. Campaign groups acting on behalf of people with short-term lets were given slight guarantees along the line but then those guarantees were thrown in the bin. Deadlines were missed. It was a complete hames from start to finish. I am very concerned that the Minister is not going to agree to any of these amendments.

The Minister referred to a presumption of getting planning. What did he mean by that? Is he saying that someone who has been running an Airbnb for 15 years and been planning compliant all their lives is going to have somebody going into their property? That could happen because I can see a lot of this being one person reporting another. It happens quite a lot in ordinary planning, so why not with this. Does that mean that the planning official who is going to arrive will tell them not to worry and that even though what was compliant 15 years is not now, the official will turn a blind eye because a presumption of getting planning has come into place here? I do not think so. I was below in the committee room when the Bill was debated. This matter should have been debated there, and I called a vote in the House yesterday to ensure that we went back into the committee. Sadly, that proposal was voted against. Some people did not even stay for the vote even though they were there before the vote was called. The Minister must explain the presumption of planning. It is very important. If somebody has been successfully and safely operating something for many years, is a planning officer going to visit and say that, in the last ten years, there have been rules on disabled access, septic tanks, electrical compliance and whatever? The planners who were at the committee meetings that we were allowed to have told me that they should sign away and not to worry. That is ridiculous. I asked one if he would put it in writing but he said he could not. Obviously he could not because he knows that when you get a knock on the door and you are not planning compliant, you have to make things compliant.

That is the concern and the crux of my wanting to speak about this amendment and others. It is a general situation. The Minister is saying that he does not know what we want but I am telling him. We did not get enough time to sit around that table. No matter how many times people sat around the table, there was a slight difference, a slight twist and a slight turn to the story and it all got changed again. The Government made a complete hames out of it.

I will be brief. The rationale for this amendment is obviously that we would have the data to inform policy. It may be needed to differentiate between rural, small, family properties and commercial properties. We do not want large commercial entities buying up properties in rural areas and making huge profits on the backs of the small operators who are already there and off the rural areas themselves. I am going to press this amendment because if that data is not available to us, we will not be able to make proper policy on this in future.

It has been helpful to have this discussion, although it has been a bit long. However, the communication concerns me. The Minister says that we will have further communication in December, but by then it will not be long before Christmas. I ask the Minister to front-load the very accurate information. Some of the questions raised by Deputies, even ones the Minister has answered, ask for information that the small operators will need in order to be able to make proper decisions and judgments about their properties.

I will not delay us long but I want to talk about the presumption of planning and the Minister's statement that two years will be allowed in settlements of fewer than 20,000 people, which is fair enough. However, what if someone has two properties in one folio? One of them could be used under the rent-a-room scheme and could be rented for up to a certain amount. The second one, to make it planning compliant, may have seen a massive investment even if it is only a one-bedroom or two-bedroom apartment for Airbnb. Under the current regulations in a rural area, there was the standard septic tank, which was a six-person unit. Someone may then have to put in an eight- or ten-person unit. A person can rent a room in a household and earn up to €14,000 tax free but they might have a little apartment for holidaymakers that is earning way less than that and the Government still wants that person to spend €20,000 to €30,000 to regularise that apartment for a short-term stay. What I am trying to say is that some of these are no longer viable. This is what we are saying about a seven-year rule. I understand what the Minister is saying about how they were not planning compliant if they were running an operating like this, but people have been giving up rooms in their houses, or maybe a little flat adjacent or just slightly away from their house, for decades. They are not planning compliant but the Minister is talking about regularising it. It has to come down to viability. The Minister is so adamant about the two-year rule, but if it is not viable for property owners to do it even though they are helping their communities, will he introduce a grant system to make it sustainable for a person who has a short-term let in a rural area that needs the business it provides?

That concludes the contributions. If the Minister answers any of the questions that were not answered previously, I can then put the question.

I thank Members for their comments again. I take the point about the communications campaign. There was one in October 2025. I appreciate that a lot has changed since then, so we will have a significant campaign starting next week. I note that there is a website with all of the details of the changes. I will put on the record that I had a number of meetings with the Department and round-table discussions with what were essentially stakeholders in connection to this. Officials from the Departments of housing and enterprise attended the Irish Self-Catering Federation annual conferences on 11 November 2024 and 10 November 2025. Fáilte Ireland has done a lot of work with some of the platforms in terms of discussions.

I wish to point something out in connection with some of the concerns that have been raised. People talk about protection. Deputy Collins says that he knows what he needs.

I appreciate that. The Deputy wants to ensure that local rural operators can continue to offer accommodation and to ensure there are no unintended consequences for the tourism sector. However, as a Government, we also have to tackle the problem whereby we have significant swathes of Airbnbs that are increasing by a minimum of 10% per annum in cities that are only let out for very short periods during the month and where there is a huge problem with housing accommodation in those areas. Society cannot stand idly by and look at young couples trying to get housing and people trying to get long-term rental accommodation where there are significant housing pressures and we keep seeing the prevalence of Airbnbs increasing. Looking at the figures, in Dublin in particular we have nearly 13,000 units of hotel accommodation going through construction. Nationally, we have 38,780 currently in planning but two thirds of them are in Dublin. I need to tackle that issue too and I cannot look at one in isolation. That is why this strikes the best balance in providing a clear pathway so that I can look any rural operator in the eye, who is relying on an Airbnb, and say directly to them that for €25 they can register and they have two years. They have a presumption for positive planning. They have a streamlined process. They do not need maps. They do not need plans. They have a very straightforward process if they are not carrying out additional works for retention.

In response to what Deputy O'Donoghue brought up - it is very clear in the planning statement - that if your property is not suitable for the long-term residential market, because it is an older property or it is in the curtilage of your own house or area, that those are the types of accommodation we want to grant planning permission for. I appreciate that there are challenges. People have to go through a streamlined process but it does provide a pathway, which is what I want to do. I want to try and ensure that we are not hindering rural accommodation. This is the best effort in doing that.

In relation to the amendments before me, I am considering an amendment to the timeline, perhaps in the Seanad. I will give further consideration to that. I want to work with people. I appreciate that people are coming from different perspectives. I have more adjudication to do on that. I will listen to the debates on it. That is what I am here to do. I am not accepting the amendments before me but I may come back on some others. That is the best I can do at the moment.

What about the grants?

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“4. The Minister shall within six months of the passing of this Act lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas setting out the operation of the register in urban areas with a population above 20,000 people including details on the number of properties refused access to the Failte Ireland register due to non-compliance with the Planning Policy Statement on Short-Term Letting and the number of properties being registered with full planning compliance.”.

I am not going to labour the point because we have dealt with some of the issues this amendment deals with in the earlier discussion but I want to make two points and then I will invite the Minister to clarify.

The challenge with the figure of 20,000 is the desire that the Minister has stated about those areas under housing stress but by setting it at that threshold, there are areas that have just the same volume of housing stress that are on the other side of it. I am not surprised that in his deliberations with the tourism committee nobody has come up with an alternative because that is not its job. That is a planning matter. Deputy Gogarty is right: we are having lots of debates about the planning policy statement that was made law a week ago without any Oireachtas scrutiny. This is our only opportunity to address it. Most of us would have preferred, particularly those of us on the planning side, if we were not in here across from the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, but in the housing committee with the planning Minister dealing with these issues and tabling amendments on them. There are better ways to do that than to have a completely arbitrary population cap. I have been arguing for some time in the context of the planning regulation of short-term letting, that using a metric not unlike what was originally put in place for rent pressure zones, where we have a certain number of indicators of housing stress and homelessness, would be a much better way because it would have given the Minister an evidential base. A population figure, whatever the number, is completely arbitrary and will leave people on the wrong side of it. This amendment, like the previous one, is to try and properly understand the operation of that.

The Minister was right in his comments at the start of his response to the last amendment, and I am sure it is in his speaking notes for this one. In fact, we should not even be coming here asking him to put this into his legislation. That should not be the case, but we literally have no other opportunity to raise these fundamental issues, which is why we are doing it here. I repeat the point: the Cabinet – the Minister was there - agreed a planning policy statement a week ago without any public ,sectoral or Oireachtas scrutiny. If the Minister is not in a position to do it now, I would invite him to send a note to members of his committee.

The Minister referenced fees for retention. The difficulty is there are very different fees for retention if it is a dwelling unit versus a commercial unit. There are some variances between local authorities but, in my local authority, for example, retention for a dwelling unit is €2.50 per square metre, but it is capped at €195, but there is no cap for a commercial unit, and it is €10.80. That is quite a difference. Again, just given the volume of confusion, any information whereby the Minister can provide clarity would be very useful. Does he know, for example, if the retention application is for a dwelling unit rather than a commercial unit? If he finds out during the course of this debate or in the Seanad debate, it would be very helpful if he could put it on the public record. My colleagues from Independent Ireland are raising these issues and raising them legitimately. If greater clarity could be provided, not just to the public and people applying, but to local authorities on what the retention process will be, that would be very helpful. Again, the form is very short. It is important that every local authority understands there is no requirement for architects, engineers or drawings. What we cannot have is the Department saying that, but then a local authority deciding to operate on a different basis. Some of what the Minister is saying is not in the circular. It is generally referenced on page 21 of the planning policy statement, but we need absolute clarity so there is consistency across the board. Those people who are providing legitimate tourism products in properties that would never and should never be in the long-term residential or rental market should have a clear, simple, low-cost process. At the same time, those operators - the Minister and I are agreed on the intention, if not how he is doing it - who should not be allowed to continue short-term letting are not able to avail of that.

The last thing is kind of interesting, and I was not going to raise it, but the Minister said the advice was he could not have a seven-year grandfather clause in areas below 20,000 and not in areas above. My argument is I would not have had a grandfather clause at all; I would have just had a simplified retention. The Minister has a two-year process in the areas below 20,000, and not above in the regularisation. I have no issue with the regularisation process. My good friend to my left, Deputy Collins, misunderstood me during Second Stage. My view would have been 12 months, for example, but I would have been open to some other period. I do think a regularisation period for the small operators is very sensible. It is interesting that the legal advice did not say we could have a differential regime in the areas below and above for the transitional period, but we could for the grandfather clause. I am interested in hearing if the Minister has an explanation for that.

I just want to follow on from that. I need to get clarity from the Minister on amendment No. 2. I seek clarification on the interpretation of planning permission when it comes to local authorities. The interpretation of planning authorities in Limerick, Cork, Galway or anywhere else is different. At the moment, any regularisation I have seen of planning applications means that people have got to regularise their septic tanks or percolation areas. A walkover survey of the site has to be done. I have yet to see a regularisation of a planning application where you do not need an engineer or drawings. What does a person need? The Minister might as well just sign it here now so it can be regularised if we do not need somebody to come in and regularise the application in the first place, regardless of whether a person is in an urban or rural area. What I want is a breakdown of the form the Minister will be giving to all local authorities, stating that they do not have to do a walkover survey, they do not have to comply with the current regulations for the environment for percolation and storm water and they do not have to comply with the current regulations for sightlines.

The Minister is saying that the person walks in, says this is the building, here is the piece of paper and that they are looking for regularisation of what is there. How is the Government going to identify properties that are not deemed as short-term lets that the Government wants to make long-term? How is it going to do the paperwork and foresee this? Is it going to take everyone at their word? Things change. Every mapping system has changed. There is probably not one person in this Chamber who has not built something on their own properties and have questioned how many years it is there or if they have even got planning permission or need planning permission for it. The only thing that I look at planning permission at the moment is that a person qualifies and that a person is allowed to put 40 sq. m onto the rear of a house without planning permission. A person is allowed to put on 1.5 sq. m to the front, but cannot touch any other elevation of the property. Yet the Minister is able to say to me here that he has the sheet of paper that says a person does not have to get a walkover survey, an engineer's report or an architect's report. What does the Minister want? Why are we here? What exactly will the Government be giving on a format to the planning authorities? When it comes down to all guidelines, including the EPA guidelines, that are giving down to the local authorities which they look at to make an interpretation of planning, a format needs to be given, full and clear.

The issue of presumption of planning is something that is going to invest so much confusion into this. If there was ever a Fianna Fáil term - no disrespect to any Fianna Fáil Members here - but the presumption of planning is something that would have been used over many years. No doubt in relation to the homeless issue if we combine all the cities, we would probably hit about 15,000 out of the 17,000 who are homeless in Ireland. Whether all those properties that we are discussing are going to return to facilitate local authorities or private landlords to put into the rental market is another question.

I am really disappointed in one of the points. To get back to the presumption of planning and to allude to what Deputy O'Donoghue was talking about, these will now be deemed to be almost semi-commercial and commercial properties. Is Part M of the building regulations one of the regulations they will have to accede or adhere to to presume that they will get planning? We had discharge licences issued at various times over the years with differences in them. Is this going to change? Will this affect their ability to presume to have planning under the presumption of planning? How often has the Minister dealt with planners? One of the things that planners will certainly rebel against is a direction to say that a person has a presumption of planning. Regarding any planning in a local authority that I have ever dealt with, the planners are very serious operators who take their jobs very seriously and take adherence to planning law very seriously. The notion that there will be a presumption of planning is something that the Minister should look at again with my constituency colleague, the Minister, Deputy Browne.

There is an old saying that those who like laws and sausages should not see them being made. That is the case when we come to the Minister's refusal to allow the enterprise committee's continuous scrutiny on this. What was the Minister afraid of? We have a very fine committee and committee Chair. We have discussed this seriously over recent times. However, the scrutiny that was required on this legislation has been abandoned such was the Government's rush. Regarding the Government's rush, and my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, alluded to it earlier, the Minister said that he has a very clear pathway, but he does not have a very clear Bill.

I will give the Minister an example of a few of the drafting errors that we discussed. Section 27F(1)(b)(i) refers to refusals under section 27(3)b or section 27(3)(c)(i). They do not exist in the new section 27. Refusals are made under section 27(4) and section 27(5)(a). As drafted, refusing a new registration may not be an appealable decision. Another example is that section 27F(4)(b)(iii) also refers to a non-existent section - section 27(3)(a). On section 47H(9) and (10), Part 53, the cross references are each one subsection out. Notices are set to be served under subsection (5) or subsection (6) and they served under subsections (6) and (7). The appeal period is said to be in subsection (7), but it is in subsection (8). Section 47H(10) says a decision takes affect only if confirmed on appeal under subsection (7) or on summary application under subsection (8). Those are subsections (8) and (9). Read literally, no sanction on a platform could ever take effect.

I have numerous drafting errors here in this Bill. This is what rushing legislation gets the Minister. He is more experienced here than I am. There are 71 amendments, none of which is a ministerial amendment correcting drafting errors. If it goes through, the attached list of errors makes key provisions unintelligible or unworkable. How serious is this in terms of legislation and law? It is one of the more serious Bills to come before this House in recent times with huge implications for many people. There are huge life-changing implications for people who have been involved in self-catering. We remember the ads of self-catering Ireland back in the day. I am old enough to remember great, wonderful, flowery ads that were made by Discover Ireland where self-catering was a wonderful thing to be part of. Yet we are not able to make law that is accurate or draft law that is accurate. I have ten or a dozen drafting errors in this Bill that I would like the Minister to comment on. The notion that we have 71 amendments and none of them is a ministerial amendment to correct drafting errors is extremely serious and speaks to the lack of intent in pushing this Bill through. I ask the Minister to comment on that.

The Minister did not come back to me in relation to my question. I have since followed it up further. There are some pretty profound contradictions between what is set out here in the Bill, the planning statement upon which it is based and the housing plan. I will discuss a contradiction between what the Minister just said and what is set out in the national planning statement. If we look at Delivering Homes, Building Communities, which is the Government's national housing plan, it says very clearly that: "Planning permission for new short-term lets will be generally precluded in cities and large towns..." The definition of a large town under the guidelines for planning authorities on sustainable and compact settlements is towns with a population of 5,000 and greater. The Minister maybe can provide clarity if that is not the case. Otherwise, this Bill and the Government's planning statement are contradicting what the national housing plan says. Has the Government ripped up the national housing plan? Is that no longer functioning? The Minister can maybe explain what is going on in relation to that.

I want to get real clarity about this. Under the Bill and the planning statement that is underpinning it, if a person has a short-term let in a rural area or a town under 20,000 then he or she will have two years to regularise planning or apply for planning permission. The Minister said that in rural areas and towns under 20,000 there is going to be a presumption of positive planning. That means that a person will get planning permission. What the Minister is saying very clearly is that for rural areas and towns under 20,000, including our Gaeltacht areas, there will be no restrictions on short-term lets. Why this is now clear to me is because it says it in the planning statement.

The planning statement is also contradicting itself. As the Minister said earlier, the planning statement states:

The core objective of the [short-term letting] reforms is to assist with bringing a proportion of the existing houses and apartments in the 25 largest cities and towns with a population above the identified threshold of 20,000 persons ... that are currently being used for [short-term letting] purposes, back into long-term rental or the housing sales market ...

The Minister said there is "a presumption for positive planning" for areas with a population of under 25,000. Sinn Féin has nothing to worry about. There are no restrictions coming in for rural or Gaeltacht areas or places with a population of under 25,000. Will the Minister make that very clear? He just said there will be "a presumption for positive planning".

The national planning statement, as set out by the Minister for housing, goes on to refer to "areas outside of the 25 largest settlements, where it is an objective of Government policy to support local economies and the sustainable development of rural and regional areas ". It continues:

In these areas, where suitable in all other respects from a planning perspective, the use of residential properties ... may be considered to be acceptable [that is not a presumption of positive planning]. However, there may be circumstances which may justify a proposal being refused permission by a planning authority on the basis of provisions included within a statutory plan ...

Can the Minister clarify whether areas with a population of under 20,000 will be granted planning permission based, as he said, on "a presumption for positive planning"? Deputy Ó Broin named some of the towns to which I will refer. They include Maynooth, Tullamore, Killarney, Midleton, Mallow, Arklow, Enfield, Kildare, Newcastle, Kilcock, Wicklow, Ashbourne, Leixlip, Clonmel and Malahide. There will be no restrictions in all of those towns, or maybe - if they are areas of housing need - there could be planning restrictions. I would appreciate a reply from the Minister.

I find it regrettable that the Government decided to raise the population cap from 10,000 to 20,000. One of the reasons I thought it would have been better to leave it at 10,000 was due to the long list of relatively well populated towns that my colleague, Deputy Hearne, listed.

I support the amendment because legislation is only as strong as its enforcement. We have seen previous attempts to deal with this issue fail. The Eoghan Murphy rules failed because there was no mechanism by which they could be properly enforced. In urban areas with a population above 20,000 people, it is entirely reasonable that we would be furnished with data. That is why I am so supportive of the amendment. We need to know, for example, how many properties will be refused access to the register because they are not compliant with planning. We will then need to know, subsequent to that, how many were compliant. It is important that we, as a Legislature, are given the tools to be able to properly measure and quantify these things. I somehow doubt that this will be the last Bill the House will ever discuss in terms of regulating short-term lets.

We are an hour and a half into 71 amendments, and we are on amendment No. 2. I welcome that the Minister is present. Sensible people see nothing wrong with a register. People representing organisations see nothing wrong with a register. I sought a three-month period for people to register in an orderly fashion. The Minister said there would be one month. I ask the Minister to consider a compromise, such as two months. That would be welcome and a positive move.

The Minister has trivialised matters. When he speaks about planning, he must remember that when he says people have to go for planning, words such as "amnesty" were incorrectly used during this debate. There is no amnesty. People will have to apply for planning and this will cause a big problem. People will have to put up planning notices. Those who might want to object will have the right to do so. If there is a river at the back of an existing property, that could be deemed to be a potential flood plain which would mean that a presumption of planning would not be granted. Roads engineers will be involved. If a septic tank is involved, a site assessment will be required. The Taoiseach did the same thing, namely, trivialised the planning issue. Planning is a big elephant in the room for existing operators, even people who have been at this for over seven years, because a planning notice is a planning notice. It has to go in a newspaper. People can say that the process will be streamlined or simplified, but it is still open to all of the objections and problems that a planning application can cause.

If people have read the national planning statement, they will see the problem and the difficulties with what is being proposed here. The quicker we can move on to voting and getting into what I would call the meatier amendments, the better. We have dealt with the issue of the timeframe sensibly and the Minister has shown an indication, which I appreciate, that he will deal with that.

I have to correct the record of the Dáil. Last week, we had a debate on whether we are in favour of the Bill being rushed. People had concerns about that. I was one of the ten people who voted against it quite simply because I believe it is being rushed. I was accused of missing a vote here yesterday. I missed nothing here yesterday. I was officially paired with a Minister who needed to not be here and that is where my vote was yesterday. It was facilitating a working Minister. I will make no apology to the House for facilitating a person who needs to be absent.

The quicker we can deal with the amendments, the better. The organisations we are working for will thank us for doing so.

Regardless of what side people are speaking from, there is still a lot of confusion about the presumption of getting planning. The Minister knows as well as I do that the proper place to iron this out was during pre-legislative scrutiny through the committee. The Minister refused that. He is railroading the Bill through the House and is giving out. He has said we will communicate after everything has been signed, sealed and delivered by the Minister, Deputy Browne, or whoever wants to impose these planning guidelines on the people of rural Ireland.

I live in a scenic landscape. The Minister has no idea how difficult it is for people to get planning permission there. Every God-damn thing is put in front of them. I know the paperwork alone has cost some people €15,000 or €20,000 for a simple application for planning, not including any of the work that needs to be carried out afterwards.

I will walk away from here delighted with myself. The Minister said a presumption of planning is very clear. He put that in writing. What does that mean? If a planner comes to a house or home and has to fill out a form on 1 December, and asks whether the owner does or does not have planning and they say they do not, what is the next step? Is the Minister saying they have no more to worry about and it is game over? Is he saying that somebody will knock on the door but will be very nice to them? They might be very nice, but they might cost the person €150,000 before they leave. The Minister can laugh, but they are the facts. If the septic tank is not up to standard, it will not cost €2,000 or €3,000 to rectify that.

Deputy O'Donoghue spoke about a grant system. That is the least the Minister should have done to make sure that people who are providing short-term lets and Airbnb accommodation are not put out of business. The Minister rushed the Bill and would not allow pre-legislative scrutiny. He can say what he wants, but he did not allow it. The Bill should have been before the committee this week or a month ago and we should have been given time to iron out the difficulties.

There was a poor communication campaign. The Minister has now said he will not support any of the amendments. I do not know why we are putting all of our time into this whole process because the Minister is railroading the Bill. The date for registration will be 1 December. Am I correct in saying that, or has the Minister said the date may instead be 1 January or 1 February? Is he sticking to the old rule? We genuinely do not know. We have the right to ask. It is unfortunate that we are not getting to the other amendments, but the Minister will reject them anyway. The point is that people have a right to know what will lie ahead of them in two years' time.

That is basically the bottom line. Is the Minister saying the planners are going to be clearly instructed that they should not take the guidelines that are there at the moment into account or is he saying differently? I would like the Minister to give us absolute clarity here tonight because thousands of people are listening and they are depending on a tourism Minister to deliver for the people that provide great tourism. That is not happening here at the moment. It is only delivering confusion. The Minister is going to hobble away over this, fall at a few fences and jump a few more and get it down to a point that we will have a chat and he will communicate with them afterwards. That is not good enough. The communication should be now before this is signed into law.

This is the problem with not having this discussed at the committee, which allows for populist politics where people put stuff on Report Stage after having a good debate that the Minister is not supporting on Committee Stage. There is still scope on Committee Stage to put stuff through, see that it is not workable from a technical point of view and then it does not come back up on Report Stage. However, we now have a lot of discussions.

We are on amendment No. 2. Again, in principle I support it because there is no harm having reporting within a set time. However, that the first recommended amendment for grouping is amendment No. 6, which is to be taken with amendment No. 48. They relate to totally separate sections of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, all propose changes between lines 25 and 26. I ask Members to excuse my ignorance on this, but if it is possible for the proposers to ask for amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive to be grouped this amendment, it would help move on the discussion, given the limited timescale. In any event, I support this amendment on the principle for which it is set down.

If somebody who has been doing short-term letting for many years does eventually apply for planning to retain what they have been doing for more than seven years and they are refused for some reason, is that the end of them or can they continue as they were doing for the seven years and more? If they are refused planning permission, does that mean they will have to cease at that point? I need an answer to that question.

I thank Deputies again for their contributions. I will read the technical response to the amendment first.

While the policy objective of the amendment is understood, the drafting is technically incorrect and could give rise to legal operational uncertainty. The EU short-term rental regulation establishes a harmonised registration system across the Single Market. The regulation provides that registration procedures operate on the basis of declarations made by hosts in Article 4(3)(a). It further requires member states to ensure that registration procedures are available online and allow for automatic and immediate issuance of a registration number.

Ireland's approach reflects these requirements. Under the proposed system, hosts register by providing the information required under the regulation and declaring that they are authorised to provide short-term rental accommodation services. In Ireland, the authorisation is determined by compliance with the planning code. Upon registration, a registration number will be issued immediately by Fáilte Ireland, as required under EU law. Fáilte Ireland will not refuse access to the register, as it may only verify information after the registration number has been issued. This reflects the framework established by the EU regulation, which is designed to ensure that no interruption to the provision of accommodation services within the Single Market while providing robust verification and enforcement mechanisms. During verification, Fáilte Ireland will share the relevant registration data including the host's details, property address and eircode, with the relevant local authority.

The Bill provides for data sharing between Fáilte Ireland and local authorities to facilitate verification and compliance activities. The local authority will confirm whether the property has the necessary planning permission in place. Where it is established that the necessary planning permission is not in place, Fáilte Ireland may suspend the registration number, thereby preventing the operator from lawfully accessing the market. Fáilte Ireland may also issue the relevant order to online short-term rental platforms requiring the removal of listings associated within the property.

A number of issues have been raised. Let me reiterate the provisions in relation to those who are operating in areas under the 20,000-population threshold and are over seven years in operation. Deputy Hearne was quoting two separate mechanisms for the 20,000-population threshold. There are those over seven years, and there are those who are operating for less than seven years who have to apply for planning. They are similar criteria, but not the exact same. If someone operating for over seven years is applying for planning permission, the form is already there. The local authorities have had the fast-track administrative application form since last September to go through that process. As I have said, no detailed maps or plans are required where no significant work is needed for the retention process. It is a strict, straightforward process. Hosts must just apply through the retention process. It is €25 to register with Fáilte Ireland and there are two years to go through that process.

I am a former planning Minister and I was eight years on a local authority in a rural area. I know there are risks with everything in life. However, when the national planning policy statement is issued, if any planning authority's development plans and guidelines does not comply or contradicts it, under the new structure, it must come back and rectify it with local government within two months. It is a very strong tool to issue the presumption to grant planning permission for. The message has gone out very clearly from the Government. We have an express administrative process, and we have a presumption to grant planning permission. I cannot be clearer on that. If there is an extreme issue, an extreme risk or something badly wrong, we all have to be honest that the reality is that planning authorities have to do their work too. We cannot take that away but the hosts do have to go through the process, and they have time on their side. We are not asking anyone to spend €100,000 or anything like it. I know how difficult it is in rural Ireland for accommodation, particularly for the tourism sector, which is very badly needed. I absolutely understand that.

Deputy Ó Broin raised a number of points. In relation to RPZs, the whole country is a rental pressure zone right now, so RPZs are not giving me any mechanism whereby I can protect a small rural operator that is needed versus someone in a larger populated area. Critically, it is not providing me an agile quick mechanism. That is the key issue. When I am coming forward with a metric, though people may argue that it is very arbitrary and there are other towns, like Maynooth that the Deputy referenced that should be in it, I appreciate that, but perfection is the enemy of the good. I cannot micromanage to get the perfect answer everywhere. My number one job is to ensure that I bring in the greatest number of short-term lets into the long-term rental market as quickly as possible, particularly in those 25 towns and cities where housing pressure is most acute. I am not saying there is not housing pressure outside of them, but those are the areas where it is most acute. That is the mechanism I have employed.

From the Attorney General's advice regarding the seven years, this is a long-standing planning position in relation to retention. The reason I can differentiate with two years is because I am changing the law. I am bringing forward a register, and I am changing the law for those two years on the register. I am establishing a new law for that. I can provide the Deputy with a note on that. There are two different things; one is a judicial precedent meaning I cannot differentiate between different people, but when I am creating a law there is a separate mechanism to do that.

Regarding the points raised by Deputy Lawlor, I am fully confident there are no mistakes in the Bill. There are a number of laws that it is intertwining with, particularly with the EU regulation. We have gone through a lot of quality assurance with the Bill.

I can see where the Deputy is coming from and why he might think that is the case. I am happy to get the officials to go through the references he read out and explain exactly what is their intention. We have had long enough to go through this and I am very happy that the Bill is in a good position.

There is another point I want to make.

What is the position regarding the fees? Are they commercial or residential?

The fee is €10.80 per square metre.

Is it a commercial retention fee that will be charged?

Yes, it is a commercial fee. I am trying to regain my train of thought. There was another issue I wanted to address.

I asked about registrations.

I can look at an amendment on registrations. I am open to working with colleagues in relation to the timeframe. I will come back to that. I want to ensure the intention of the Bill is carried through.

The point I was going to make was that I want to put on record that I really value the work of the enterprise committee. I know more than most what it does. I engage with the members regularly to go through issues of the day and I appear before the committee when the members ask me to do so. I have a very good relationship with the Cathaoirleach and all the members. This Bill has been there for a significant period. I do not mean to be disingenuous in any way about this. I absolutely acknowledge that pre-legislative scrutiny began in October 2025. The Government originally came forward with a population threshold of 10,000 before increasing it to 20,000. I am limited in terms of the control I can give to the enterprise committee. I am waiting for another Department to come forward with the national planning policy. It is the right and prerogative of the enterprise committee to say it will not go forward with a pre-legislative scrutiny report until it gets sight of that document.

I have other pressures to work through. It is very clear in the handbook that, in essence, we do not want to delay legislation. That is a key point. This Bill has been around for a long time. There are housing units that I want to get back into the long-term rental market as quickly as possible in the 25 towns that are under significant pressure. I also want to ensure we achieve a balance in protecting rural areas. That is what I have endeavoured to do in this work. I absolutely appreciate and fully respect the perspectives people have brought forward.

I would like clarity on a particular point. The Minister's comment on presumption of positive planning was specifically in relation to properties operating for seven years or more in towns with a population under 20,000. If a property owner has been operating for less than seven years or is newly applying for planning permissions, restrictions will apply in areas of housing need. Why then does the Minister continue to say that his aim is to get housing back in the 25 towns? Why is it not also his aim to get housing back in towns with a population smaller than 20,000? Will he clarify that there will be limitations and that in terms of planning, there will not be a presumption in favour in towns under 20,000?

It is clearly outlined on page 19 of the planning policy statement the position regarding operators not in compliance with the law and operating for less than seven years. The parameters within which they can be considered for the granting of planning permission are set out. There are a number of conditions attached. The housing need and demand assessment is one of the key factors, depending on housing pressures in those areas. The local authorities will have to make an adjudication on that. The information is on page 19 of the planning statement.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"4. The Minister shall within six months of the passing of this Act lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas setting out the enforcement activity of Fáilte Ireland and planning authorities with respect to non-compliance with the registration and planning requirements of the legislation and accompanying planning policy statement, including an assessment of the staffing requirements involved in the compliance related to the Short-Term Letting Regulations.".

Much of how this regime works and whether it is successful or not will depend on the operation of the enforcement, some of the detail of which the Minister just gave us, and the resourcing for both Fáilte Ireland and the local authorities. From my conversations with people concerned about the lack of long-term homes in their communities, both urban and rural, and the small, family-based tourism operators who hope to be able to continue to operate their products, this is one of the areas they least understand. I invite the Minister, in his response to my questions and comments, to clarify in more detail how the enforcement will work and how it will be resourced. The logic of this amendment is to allow us to track that.

The Minister clarified one of the queries I had when he said that everybody who applies from 1 December will get their registration number and that the process of verification and adjudication will take place after that. I will concentrate for a moment on the areas above a population threshold of 20,000 because they involve the people for whom there is meant to be a tougher regime unless they are availing of the seven-year grandfather clause. On the one hand, they cannot be on the register without demonstrating planning compliance but the Minister is telling us that, initially, they will get a registration number. I assume that they will be on the register during that period. There will then be a process of trying to verify with the local authority whether they are planning compliant. We know the overwhelming majority currently are not compliant.

What kinds of conversations have the Minister's officials had with Fáilte Ireland on the resourcing that will be required specifically for that cohort? This will be quite an onerous task in that initial period. If we imagine a scenario where all those people apply to get on the register - judging by what happened with Eoghan Murphy's regulations in 2019, that is not guaranteed, but there are many thousands of such properties - how long is that likely to take and has there been an assessment of the resourcing requirements? It will put a lot of stress on the local authorities in those areas to be asked to address that matter. These are the same local authorities whose representatives told us some years ago, when the Minister was a Minister of State at the Department of housing with responsibility for planning, that they were already chronically under-resourced in terms of their planning capacity. They now have to deal with new areas of enforcement, including free-standing residential extensions and other exempted developments. I am keen to know how that will operate.

I am also keen to understand because, again, it is relevant to the amendment in terms of resourcing, in the case of a short-term letting operator in a population area above 20,000 who is then found not to be planning compliant - whether a week, a month, six months or a year later; we are not sure how long it will be - how will the enforcement from Fáilte Ireland operate at that point in terms of its resourcing and timelines? A lot of our conversation is focused on the people who own the properties but it is really important for us to mention that in the middle of all of this, there is a very large and very profitable international corporation that, for a decade, which is as long as I have been in this House, has been facilitating and profiting from the widespread breach of our planning system. I refer, of course, to Airbnb. It is not the only agency that is knowingly facilitating and profiting from the breaking of the State's planning laws but it certainly is the most successful and aggressive in terms of its lobbying operations. How will the enforcement of requests to remove advertisements for short-term letting operate in real time? I have read the legislation but I do not know it as well as do the members of the enterprise committee.

As the Minister knows from his time both as a councillor and in the Department of housing, enforcement is often where these rules fall down because it is slow and cumbersome and it allows people to avoid and evade, in many cases for long periods. Has there been any assessment within the Department as to how long enforcement will take in the case of operators in areas with a population above 20,000? What will happen when somebody applies to go on the register who is not planning compliant but has submitted a retention application to the local authority and the latter is taking longer than the statutory time period to process that application? The Minister may not be able to answer my last question. Has there been any conversation between his Department, Fáilte Ireland, the Minister for housing, Deputy Browne, and his Department and the County and City Management Association, CCMA, as to what the resourcing requirements will be for the local authorities to process all these planning and retention applications?

That is a very legitimate question to have answered here, as is the question on making decisions on those. Likewise, will the Minister provide clarity as to the role of An Coimisiún Pleanála in all of that and whether there have been conversations with the commission about resourcing as well? Even if there are very well-crafted rules and regulations, and with respect to the planning policy statement I do not believe they are, in the absence of the staffing and resourcing of the enforcement regime those regulations are not worth the paper they are written on. I look forward to the Minister's responses and I may come back with supplementary questions depending on those.

Obviously, enforcement and the amendment we are talking to right now are hugely important. What does the Minister mean by enforcement? He is saying that Fáilte Ireland can block registration - I think he said that earlier. No? Did I pick that up wrong? I am sorry if I did. What happens if someone is not applying by the rules or the guidelines and does not have the planning? The Minister might answer that question.

The other thing the Minister is saying relates to planning. I have no issue with registration nor has anybody that I have met, such as groups above here in the Gallery. They have no issue with registration. That is kind of out of the way. Maybe the speed at which people are trying to do it could be an issue. The Minister is saying 1 December. I think he might have to look at that.

The Minister is saying no significant works on a property will have to be done unless it needs to be done. That is a conflicting kind of way of saying things. I will just pick one area. The planner will say if the person is not compliant. Only the planner who calls to the house can say what compliance is. A property can be running perfectly for the last 20 years doing Airbnb, which quite a lot of them are. It may be a little side apartment, some pods, some sheds, some this or some that, or whatever, it does not matter. Is the Minister saying that a planner will come out and say a septic tank is not up to standard but will not say anything to the person, that they are okay, because the planner likes the person? That is the area a lot of people are finding a problem with. They do not understand this. The pre-legislative scrutiny in committee would have been helpful because we would have tried to tease it out. We are even teasing things out here tonight, inch by inch, and it is fine. This is the only area we can do it. But what does the Minister mean by compliance. Are they just going to come out and shake your hand and say it is fine, not to worry at all? Or, are they going to come out and say that they need to look at the septic tank? Maybe the planner will say he or she needs to look at whether there is disability access. The planner may say there is a regulation and as a senior planner they will not walk away until something is done as they have to cover their own back. Is the Minister saying no, the planner will be quite happy, and will stand at the door and say okay, that the person is doing business in the right way? That is the clarity needed here. That is the issue.

We spoke to our European colleague Ciaran Mullooly MEP about this. He is very clear that many other countries in Europe that have huge tourism figures are not bringing this type of draconian law before their people. They are very careful not to damage a certain sector of tourism. As is so often said here, we seem to be using a hammer to crack a nut, which is a successful and very tasty nut too. Unfortunately, everyone knows the biggest problem here with regard to a planner coming to your door, and I can see it a mile away, is that people are going to report others. This happens quite a lot in relation to planning decisions because somebody down the road reported it. Sometimes it is people in another county reporting them. That is the concern. If the planner stands at the doorstep will he or she say to the person they have been operating perfectly for the last 20 years and the planner will not open their mouth about the septic tank that was meant to be for the family, and yes there are extra people or that disability access is not going to worry the planner, etc? I would like that clarity.

In 2025 Kerry County Council dealt with 1,430 planning applications. There are approximately 4,000 short-term lets, STLs, in county Kerry. A large percentage of those will be seeking planning because they will not have planning already. We may have some of them in holiday villages which would already have planning so they will not have to go for planning but it is fair to say that many of those 4,000 will need planning. There were 1,430 applications in 2025. How does the Minister expect our very hard-working local authorities to deal with the influx of planning applications that will come in over the two-year period? Even if we divided it and said that in a very orderly fashion half will apply in the first year and half will apply in the second year, we know it will not work that way. How are the planners supposed to deal with the applications?

Over the last number of minutes the Minister has trivialised the planning because he is missing the elephant in the room. The Minister will know better than any one of us inside here that a planning application involves a planning notice, a planning report, a site assessment report and a road report. All can be very onerous despite the fact that the diktat from Government is to assume a grant of planning permission. The Minister knows it will not be a rubber-stamping exercise.

I support this amendment. It is fundamental to the whole debate about this Bill. I cannot have confidence that the Bill is serious because the Minister has not set out clearly where the additional resources are to be given to planning. I do not agree with the some of the Deputies on a lot of things but actually they are right to say that this is a massive piece of work that is coming to our local authorities in terms of planning if this is going to be done seriously - but if it is not and it is just another nod and a wink and whatever, well clearly it will not be. If these rules, as set out, are to be applied it will require significant planning. I do not know who it was, but someone asked what if there is an extreme risk and planning consent is given. What happens if the building is not up to standard and is granted planning? Is the planner then responsible if something happens in short-term let accommodation? Planners have to ensure that if they are granting planning permission they actually know there is not a serious risk there, unless we are moving to self-certification planning, which again requires significant time.

There is a real lack of seriousness around what actually is going to be required if this is going to be enforced. It leads me to a fundamental belief that this is not a serious Bill about clamping down on short-term lets. The Minister still has not said that his aim is to also clamp down on short-term lets in areas under 20,000. The Minister has just referred back to the planning statement but there is no clarity on it. I would like a clear statement on that.

I will first read the official response, which is the technical one, to amendment No. 3. The proposed amendment is not considered necessary. Fáilte Ireland and the planning authorities are already subject to established governance, reporting and accountability arrangements, including oversight by the Oireachtas and relevant Ministers. The amendment would introduce a specific statutory reporting requirement in relation to enforcement activity and staffing matters, which are operational issues for the bodies concerned and are subject to ongoing review. Resource allocation and staffing requirements are best considered through existing management, budgeting and oversight processes rather than through a legislative reporting obligation.

Furthermore, the legislation already provides a robust framework for compliance enforcement. The proposed reporting requirement would not add materially to the existing transparency and accountability arrangements. Appropriate oversight of the regime can be achieved through establish governance reporting mechanisms without the need for an additional statutory obligation.

A good few issues were raised on this point. First, let us go back again in relation to the operator who is seven years in operation and is seeking to regularise their planning permission in an area with a population under 20,000. This is a change of use application. When they got planning originally one would imagine there should be some criteria they would have already adhered to. This is why we have been able to bring forward a simplified administrative process from last September, where no maps are needed and where no plans are needed. Why? Because they would have already brought it forward on the original planning application. This is a simplified process for those who are in operation, with the explicit intent of Government policy, to ensure that the tourism sector can continue to operate in rural areas.

The presumption to grant planning contained in the national planning statement is very clear. It is also very clear that the register in Fáilte Ireland will give two years to allow them to do just that. It is very clear that it is a change of use application. As a rural councillor, I saw many planning applications. If I am going to build a new property, and I am looking at sight lines, percolation and so on, it is very different from having an existing property that has planning for a different purpose and applying for a change of use under a simplified mechanism by Government that is already out since last September. Local authorities are already working through this.

On additional resources, over the last three years, the local authorities have had a recruitment plan to bring additional planning staff into the system. They are already working through this simplified process. It will be more efficient because it is a straightforward process. It is not that officials have to delve through plans, maps and so on. It is a simplified process for those over the seven years and under the 20,000 that people are concerned about. As Deputy Hearne has said, I have alluded to the planning statement in connection with those who are looking for planning, where there is a pathway for under 20,000. However, when someone is looking for planning there is a different threshold. They have to prove that it meets the criteria laid out within the planning statement. I am not an expert in planning so I do not want to give an assurance as to what exactly people have to do, but the pathway is there. If the Deputy asks me if I want to stop people from getting planning permission for an Airbnb in an area with a population of under 20,000, the answer is that I do not want to stop people from getting planning as long as they meet the criteria of their local authority and as set down by the national planning statement. There will be considerations that they can address in their adjudication on that. I absolutely want to see units coming back in those 25 towns and villages with populations over 20,000. Notwithstanding that, as contained in the statement, there will be housing pressures in areas under that threshold on which a local authority can adjudicate. They are contained in the national planning statement.

On Fáilte Ireland, 12 additional staff have been brought in to deal with the operation of the register. A huge amount of this is through data-sharing. The work is essentially automated, to examine the register and find out who is on it and not complying. Everyone can register. Fáilte Ireland will not be stopping people from registering. It will go into an enforcement regime in respect of people who have registered and are not planning-compliant. To address Deputy Michael Collins's point, if someone does not have planning and they are going on to register with Fáilte Ireland, there is a box they should tick saying they are in the process and are going to regularise their planning situation. They should tick the box on registration and then their obligation is to regularise their planning situation. For those who do not, the penalties are significant. In respect of the platforms, first of all, I refer to the Digital Services Act. We have a rate to follow on that of 2% of global turnover, which is significant. We are also working through the whole process under Article 5, where Fáilte Ireland will work with those. If it is deemed someone is not compliant with the planning code, we are very strict and clear that they will be fished out in the over-20,000 category. The penalties are significant but it is necessary to check, through the process, whether there has been a genuine mistake or issue, or whether it is essentially not in compliance with the law. We have our fines and policy attached on Article 6. I am very clear on the spirit of the legislation and what it is trying to do. We have the resources to do that. Fáilte Ireland's chief executive has assured me that they have no impediment to running this efficiently. There is a great deal of uncertainty and unpredictability, naturally, in terms of how many housing units can come back. We want to bring back as many as we can. My firm conviction is that when a huge number of people in society need long-term accommodation in areas where housing pressure is acute, we must ensure that we bring it back.

On the EU point, 22 countries already have the regime. Some have it far stricter than we have here. Every country has to manage its response and adjudicate on what is best for it. I hope I have outlined my thought process in coming to the policy position that has been considered by Government, which I think is reasonable. I fully accept that there are Deputies who do not think it goes far enough. That is a fair point. I can absolutely see the merits of that. I can also see the merits in Deputies saying it goes too far. I will go back to my core point. People can say this is a planning issue. This is the Bill we are taking it on. I have not seen an amendment that shapes and protects what some Members are suggesting here. I see a lot of reports and extensions but I do not see a robust mechanism whereby rural operators in areas of no pressure are protected and can continue to bring in a second income, put their kids through college and derive an income, while commercial operators with which people have an issue or those in areas of acute housing need are brought back into the marketplace. I have not seen such an amendment. Maybe there is something wrong with me, but in all 71 of the amendments before me, I have not seen it.

In the same way as I said at the start, I am really inviting the Minister to provide clarity here. Unfortunately, on some of these key issues he has actually made things a little bit more confusing. Let us just go through them one by one. The reason we have these amendments providing for reports is that we are not allowed to table amendments that would put a charge on the State, for example through a requirement to have a workforce plan or to increase resources. We are not permitted to do that. Also, there is not transparency on the interrelationship between Government sanctioning additional posts in State agencies and what those State agencies need. For example, directors of services in local authorities will come into the housing committee regularly. When we ask if they have enough resources they say, "Of course, we have all the resources and the Minister tells us just to knock on the door if we do not." However, when we meet those very same directors of services privately, they will tell us of the enormous difficulty they have getting Government to agree to that sanction.

Let us just use the case in point. When the previous housing Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, was bringing forward the most controversial and detailed reform of our planning system in the modern history of the State, the County and City Management Association produced a report to say that before that legislation was even enacted, they were 550-odd planning staff short. This speaks directly to the question Deputy Michael Healy-Rae has raised. They have been given sanction for 200 of those staff and they have not yet recruited them all. That is before the Planning and Development Act has been commenced - only half of it has been commenced over the last two years – and before the new exempted development regulations have been introduced, or the new planning policy statements on rural and Gaeltacht housing. Right now, our planning authorities do not have sufficient staff to do the work that is front of them. At least the Minister is telling us that there have been no conversations of which he is aware about what additional staffing requirements they will need to address this.

Here is where that gets tricky. If somebody’s structure, whether they are in an area above or below 20,000, already has planning permission, the Minister is correct that it should be a more straightforward retention application, in theory. What if the planning permission that was granted for that building was not for any human habitation at all but for an outhouse, a farm building or a structure for some other use? All of a sudden the change of use planning application is now going in on the basis that X number of people are expected to be in that dwelling at any given time. That raises all sorts of planning questions. I absolutely acknowledge that the circular indicates there is a short process. There is no doubt about that. What it is not clear about, and what it is not providing the planning authorities or the applicants guidance on, is those complicated issues where it is not a straightforward or simple case. That is going to cause quite a level of difficulty. I do not want to be putting words into the Minister’s mouth so he should correct me if I am wrong, but what he is saying is there has been no additional sanction of staff for Fáilte Ireland, above and beyond what it has already, to address the early-stage roll-out enforcement. If that is not the case the Minister should correct me because we do need clarity. It seems to be the case that there is going to be a process whereby thousands of short-term letting property owners across the State have to register by December, and then there is a verification and approval or removal process that takes place.

If a significant number of those people are also then going to be applying in parallel for planning permission, in cases where they are refused, they will, one assumes, be appealing them to An Coimisiún Pleanála. That is a very heavy administrative workload. Even under the simplified process the Minister has outlined, that is a very onerous process.

My fear is that in the absence of a workforce plan accompanying the two elements of this register - the planning and Fáilte Ireland - there will be a real struggle. My biggest concern is on the planning side because that is where my area of responsibility is. My colleague, Deputy Conway-Walsh, obviously deals with enterprise and tourism. I am not hearing anything from the Minister on that. For example, in areas with a population above 20,000, significant numbers of operators on the register without planning permission will continue to break the law in respect of properties that the Minister says he wants brought back into residential occupation for a period of months, if not even longer, because there is a 14-week statutory process for the local authority. There might be a further information request, it could be refused or it could be appealed to the board. The Minister and I both know that when those smaller applications go to the board, it can take six, 12 and sometimes 18 months to deal with them, notwithstanding the good work of the commission in clearing the backlog. Throughout that time, and the Minister can correct me again if I am wrong, they will be able to trade because they will have a registration number and the process of addressing the planning issue will be in train. Can the Minister at least give us some clarity on how all of that is going to work?

For example, given that all of the operators in the 25 larger areas with a population above 20,000 have known since 2019, when Eoghan Murphy introduced the rules, that they are required to be planning compliant - it is a much different issue in the rural areas that were brought under the RPZs last year - they should have been going about getting their planning regularisation many years ago. Why was it not a requirement that, in fact, at the point of registration, they had to demonstrate planning compliance? I can absolutely accept the need for a lead-in period for regularisation, particularly in smaller, traditionally non-RPZ areas. It seems to me that this is a big loophole right in the middle, which means the claim the Minister is making, that he wants those long-term homes brought back into long-term residential occupation, will fall foul of a poorly designed enforcement regime and we will be coming back to him in a short period of time to say it is chronically under-resourced and not able to do what he said earlier it would be doing from December onwards.

The Minister said that Europe had accepted this and that 22 countries in Europe had accepted this regime, with some having a stricter one. Why did he not look at those countries that do not have as strict an approach? He seems to want to look at the stricter aspects of this. Our information from Europe is that it was leaving each state to make up its own mind on it and that Ireland has decided to dictate and be the hardest on ordinary people in rural communities who are providing a fantastic Airbnb service.

The Minister also confirmed that it is a change of use to commercial planning. What are the implications of this for property owners? Do they realise the costs involved in running a commercial property, with rates, insurance, etc.? What about a granny flat in someone's garden, for which the same meter point reference number, MPRN, is used for electricity? How will that work? Is there a simplified process? The Minister might be able to clarify all of this because we cannot find out these things in committee. Is there a simplified process to declassify a property as commercial and return it to residential if people want to sell it, pass it on or return it to family use? If so, is there a cost to that? What happens to a pre-1963 building for which there is no original planning? That is a very serious issue because a lot of people are operating Airbnbs in beautiful old houses and they are successful. What happens the bookings that have already been taken for next year? Can they go ahead? They were taken before the registration came in and people have planned holidays already. Do they have to cancel them? These are very serious questions.

I still have not got clarity from the Minister on the presumption of planning. He said maps will not be needed and people should not worry about plans. What if the planner is at someone's door asking questions? The Minister said regulation will be enforced. Is he saying people will not be asked what their septic tank is like? Is he saying the planners will not call out to the houses at all? If they will not, that is the best news. Deputy Hearne will not like it but I certainly will because it means we have no more to worry about. I have a serious concern because I know the way the planners operate. They have a book and if things are not by the book, people are doomed. I need to know, in this situation, whether planners are going to call to people's house and are they going to go by regulation or non-regulation? That is the simple question I am asking. I would appreciate if the Minister could also answer the other questions I asked him.

I thank the Deputies again for their questions in connection with the Bill. First, just to clarify, Fáilte Ireland asked for additional resources and they were sanctioned. I remember-----

Can the Minister give us the figures?

It requested 12 additional people. I remember-----

I apologise for cutting across the Minister. For clarity, will they be in post and in situ from 1 September-----

Yes.

-----or are they currently under recruitment?

As far as I understand it, Fáilte Ireland has them already, so they are in situ.

It has them already

I remember meeting the then chief executive of Fáilte Ireland within the first few days of getting this post. One of the things that surprised me at that stage, because I was taking over as the new Minister with responsibility for tourism, is that the chief executive of Fáilte Ireland said Fáilte Ireland was ready to go and do this. Obviously, we had discussions with the new chief executive and we are 100% confident that Fáilte Ireland is ready for this, can manage it - the organisation has a lot of automation - and will be able, without doubt, to robustly hold to account those on the register. Critically, when I point out that those who seek to get planning and regularise their position in the areas with a population of under 20,000 will have two years if they tick the box, while those in areas with a population of over 20,000 will not. They will not have the luxury of going to An Coimisiún Pleanála for six or eight months. That is not possible. They have one month, essentially. At the end of December, they will have to have planning permission. It is a very stringent process in that regard. That is key to trying to deliver units. That is where we have to have teeth to get the properties back into the system. If there is any misleading or things are done deliberately, there are summary offences and fines within the legislation. Some Deputies are asking me to extend that period. I am mindful, as are the Deputies present, of how long the statutory process is and that if some people commence this process now, they may not get through the system by the end of December. However, we also have to be aware that those are people in high pressurised areas who are not planning compliant. That is why there is some debate over the amendment seeking additional time. There is a cliff edge there and that is very clear.

Deputy Collins raised a number of issues. Bookings can go ahead. There is no issue with that. Those are booked now.

In relation to the planning application, the planning statement is very clear. The simplified process that local authorities already have and are utilising is there for all to see. They are going through this right now. They are going through that retention mechanism right now. People can avail of this and use it. Critically, we are giving people two years to go and do that. I cannot make it any clearer for people or spell it out any clearer when the Government is saying that there is a presumption to grant planning permission for people who are carrying this on as a livelihood in areas where tourism needs them. We know that tourism provides one in ten jobs in local rural economies. I know areas in Leitrim and parts of Mayo and Longford where there is no hotel accommodation. It is very difficult to deliver hotel accommodation. That is why I am also bringing forward an accommodation strategy. It is to try to answer some of those difficult questions about how we can get a commercial operator to deliver a hotel, working with the State, in areas that are crying out for that accommodation. We are not in the space I want to be in in that regard and we need short-term lets to fill that void.

Obviously, local authorities have decisions to make. I cannot prescribe everything and nor can the Minister for planning but I think we have a fair balance in that regard. We have a strong pathway and a simplified process. The forms are already out, there is a €25 fee and people have two years to bring their property into regularisation. That cannot be any more clear. Equally, I have to be tough on those in areas of population over 20,000 because the Bill will be meaningless if we are not robust on the other side of the coin. That is why we have to ensure that where there are housing pressures, we are bringing units back into the system.

I asked about the pre-1963 units. Has the Minister any clarity on that?

Deputy, if you wish to stand and speak-----

I asked a question about pre-1963 properties. There are lots of people in Airbnb with pre-1963 houses. There was no planning regulation at that time. Is the Minister saying now that they will or will not have to have permission? It is one or the other. The other question I asked was about the change of use to commercial. What are the implications of this for the property owner? Do they realise the costs involved in running a commercial property, including rates, insurance and so on? What about a granny flat in the garden on the same MPRN or electricity meter? How does that work? Is there a simplified process there? All of these things should have been ironed out in pre-legislative scrutiny at the Oireachtas committee but unfortunately we did not get that chance, so now we have to do a little bit of internal digging in here. Is there a simplified process to declassify a property as commercial and go back to residential if owners want to sell it, pass it on or use it for their own family? Is there a cost to this? The Minister, in fairness, gave clarity in relation to the bookings and I appreciate that.

Would the Deputy rent out a bed and breakfast or part of his house without having insurance? We all have to be realistic here.

I was talking about rates.

Let the Minister answer. The Deputy can come back in again.

They do not have to pay rates.

The Deputy mentioned insurance. Obviously, rates will depend on the registration but there are exemptions from rates for some operators. It will depend on the exemption that they have, be it that they are a registered bed and breakfast or are registered with Fáilte Ireland. I will clarify that for the Deputy. I will get an exact clarification on that. My job here is not to absolve everyone of all of the expenses in life. If people have a good business model and are letting out Airbnbs in a rural area, I am sure they have insurance. I have no doubt they have insurance. I also have no doubt that they have to pay for light and heat. These are basic things that people are doing already. My job is to ensure that we can keep capacity going in areas that need it and bring units back in areas that do not.

What about the pre-1963 properties?

I will keep asking. I am sorry.

That is okay. On the pre-1963 issue, that is a fair question. My understanding is that it is a change of use and if it is a change of use, people have to go through the planning process. That is it.

The Minister's clarification on the areas above the population threshold of 20,000 is very helpful. Essentially, they have a month. If they do not have planning permission, even with the benefit of the grandfather clause, they are not getting through planning within that month. That is self-evident. We know that from the statutory timelines and appeal decisions from An Coimisiún Pleanála. A very significant number of operators in those 25 large urban areas may not apply to go on the register because they know they will not be able to meet that one-month deadline. Some may decide to apply for planning permission and then try to get on the register at a later stage, even though I know that is not the intention. Will the Minister to talk us through, in practical terms, what the enforcement regime is going to be? These are people who will not necessarily be visible to Fáilte Ireland in that they will not have registered and demonstrated planning compliance within that month. Will there be a requirement on Fáilte Ireland, for example, to track the continued illegal operation of those short-term lets through online platforms or estate agents and to proactively go for enforcement for non-registration and non-planning compliance at that early stage?

I ask this in the context of the experience of former Minister Eoghan Murphy's regulations. We worked very closely on a cross-party basis, across both Government and Opposition in the Oireachtas housing committee at the time, in 2018 and 2019, on a report that informed those regulations. One of the big problems was that even though those regulations were, broadly speaking, in line with our committee's recommendations, we warned the Minister at the time that planning enforcement would not work and that people would simply wait and see. That is exactly what happened. Only a tiny number, as Deputy Hearne mentioned, applied for planning permission and change of use. The overwhelming majority just continued to operate outside the law and once they saw that planning enforcement was not effective, they were able to do so. Have there been specific discussions between the Minister, his officials and Fáilte Ireland about the eventuality of large numbers of operators not applying to go on the register and, whether they apply for planning subsequently or not, trying to operate outside of the regime in those early stages? That first six to 12 months is going to be absolutely key.

Is the Minister aware, in relation to the window of opportunity to apply which runs from 1 December to 31 December, that it has been traditional over the years for county council offices to close down around 21 December or not later than 22 December. They do not open again until the day before New Year's Day. A kind of shadow attempt would be there. Not everyone goes back. It is their entitlement to take their annual leave in that space of time. People do not come back until 2 or 3 January, as we know, because 1 January is a bank holiday. It is the start of the new year. Could the Minister give an extension for the month of January, let us say? What is the panic? Get it right and give people a chance. He should at least give people a chance to apply. Why can the Minister not look at that in a favourable light and give people a chance? People are outraged over this, that they are being rushed like this, more or less at gunpoint. They will be late if they do not apply in December. Does the Minister understand the long-standing tradition of the local authorities to let people go off from 21 December until 1 or 2 January?

That was a slightly extreme reference there, Deputy-----

Sorry?

It was a slightly extreme reference, that anyone would be forced "at gunpoint" by a Minister.

Well, it is more or less that.

It was a metaphor, a Cheann Comhairle.

I get it. To be fair, I get it.

All right.

Is the Minister coming back in?

I just wanted to drive home the seriousness-----

Although I am not sure about Kerry people-----

Please.

I do not have any gun here, in case you think I have.

Thanks for letting us know. Minister, will you come back in?

At the same time, people are very worried and concerned about this rush.

Of course. The Minister is coming back in, Deputy.

A number of points were made by Deputy Healy-Rae. I want to understand his thought process in relation to the extension of the register. In theory, the majority of the people that he represents, who are living in areas with less than 20,000, will have two years to regularise their planning. I am confused because a lot of Deputies in those cohorts want to extend the date for the register. By extending the register, we are also allowing additional time for those who I really want to target - those in the areas of population over 20,000. That is a big call. What I am saying in relation to a number of amendments that were brought forward is that I would like to know a bit more about what the thought process is. What is the concern? Why do people want to extend it for people with short-term lets in areas of under 20,000 when they are being given two years to regularise? They can register on 1 December, tick a box and they have two years to regularise their planning position. What difference does it make if that is 1 December or 1 January? I do not understand that, which is the key point. Critically, for the robustness and the teeth of the process for those in areas over 20,000, which Deputy Ó Broin referenced, I need to have a strong cliff edge. I need to have the teeth to go after them and get those units back into long-term accommodation.

One issue that does concern me slightly is the length of the statutory process but the point that I come back to is that they are not planning compliant. Sympathy only goes so far. I am talking here about people in areas of over 20,000. It is about trying to get a balance. A lot of those people have already applied for permission. They are going through the process as we speak. To be fair, if operators think they have a pathway to compliance, they should be pursuing that.

You should not be waiting for a register to open on 1 December to try to be compliant. Fáilte Ireland will be robustly going after the register, working with online platforms and ensuring that people are not on platforms unless they are planning compliant. If people in areas of over 20,000 are not planning compliant, they will be suspended. Critically, there will be summary offences for breaches of the law. We are clear on that. I have been clear with Fáilte Ireland that we are going after that hard. This has to be robust. We have to bring back accommodation in those areas of over 20,000. There will be resources to do that, and we have a strong system. Despite Members talking about rushed legislation, we have had quite a lot of time. The system has been preparing for this for a while.

A lot of people have worked all the year with long hours. There is no such thing as 40 hours, or anything like that for those people. A lot of people go away totally and close down for the month of December. Maybe as we are speaking now, they have gone. I do not ever finish up, and a lot of people do not. We keep going. There are other people who have health complications and take this time to go to the North of Ireland to get their hips, knees and different things done. That is why December is not as clear a month as January, when more or less everyone is back. There is another thing. When we are talking about sending Fáilte Ireland after people to close them down, that is a new departure. Fáilte Ireland was put in place to support tourism, help people get business and sell our product abroad. Now we will have them closing people down.

I fully agree with Deputy Danny Healy-Rae about Fáilte Ireland. It is incredible to think an organisation that is supposed to promote tourism will be the organisation that could end the tourism sector. Those are facts. The Minister said pre-1963 houses will have to get planning. That will cost hundreds of thousands, so they are gone. The Minister is saying the system has been in place for so long. The problem is there has been nothing but confusion about this Bill and there is no point saying any different. People around the country are sending me messages left, right and centre. They do not know what is going to happen. The Minister gave some clarity, which I accept, about people who have taken bookings. That is a serious question that came up because I had a number of public meetings about it. That was the will of the people. They came up here in high numbers to protest and to let the Government know that their businesses meant something to them. They are watching this debate tonight.

Yes, but will you speak to the amendment?

It is to the amendment we are talking. They are genuinely watching tonight to see if they can get some kind of clarity. I keep asking the question and the Minister does not answer me. Is a planner going to come to a person's door?

No.

Nobody is going to come to their door, so they are safe out. Is that right?

The Minister can respond.

This is what it comes down to-----

Is that a question?

Yes. There is no point telling me here that there will be no maps and no need for plans and that there is a simplified process. That is all rosy in the garden, but the bottom line is whether there is a planner if you are not compliant. You have to mark the boxing saying you do not have planning. Is a planner going to stand at your doorstep at some stage in the next two years to tell you how to become compliant? I cannot get that straight answer. Tonight the Minister says absolutely not. Sure, Lord God, we will all go back and celebrate. It is a great victory for the ordinary people.

I do not know how you can say that "absolutely not" is not a straight answer but we will give the Minister a chance to answer the question again.

Sorry, the Ceann Comhairle was not here, but I have asked six or seven times for that answer, and the Minister tells me that it is a simplified process, that you need no maps or plans. He is not telling me, however, whether a planning official is going to stand at your doorstep in relation to this. Are they going to get call-outs? Is the Minister saying not to worry and that that is absolutely not going to happen?

Are you putting that question to the Minister?

I have put it about ten times.

What about the objectors?

Sure, the objectors will be firing in letters left, right and centre from the minute this gets going.

I again thank Members for the contributions. First, for extreme clarity, is there any town or area in Cork South-West with a population that is over 20,000?

No. Well, maybe there is Bandon.

Let us tease this through. No, there is not. Every Airbnb and family unit in Cork South-West can register with Fáilte Ireland on their phone in five minutes. That is all it takes, €25 and five minutes. They can tick a box. They have two years to become planning compliant. They can continue for two years and regularise their planning situation.

For those who have been more than seven years in operation, I have been clear that this is a retention application. It is not a whole new planning application. Not only that, but the Government has brought forward a streamlined process whereby no maps and plans are required. They can go and get planning, and the presumption is to grant. That is the policy of the Government, issued through a national planning statement. That cannot be any clearer.

We also have a process for those who have been operating for less than seven years to apply for planning permission, as detailed on page 19 of the national planning statement, and the considerations are clear. The pathway is clear. You have time on your side. You have certainty in terms of how you can register, and you have a planning policy statement to go forward. The Deputy has asked me if someone will be out checking the road. If a house got planning, it should have sight lines. Surely with our planning system we can expect that. If a house got planning, it should have the basic criteria for a planning application. That is why we can go through a process that is simplified. You do not need maps or plans that planners are going to peruse and check. It is a simplified process. I think that gives us a reasonable balance. I know many on the other side of the House are not happy with that. I understand why they are not happy with it, but I think it is giving a balance.

I have to say, the most enjoyable part of my portfolio has been the job of tourism Minister. I have put so much energy into it over the past year. I have been up and down the country. I have met with so many operators. We have a huge number of grants coming forward over the coming month that are going to help people with digitalisation, recognising the huge change in how people book their holidays and use generative AI to plan their itineraries. The capacity we want to build in businesses is going to be significant. We have 228,000 employed in tourism. I know that. We have 46,000 businesses that rely on tourism for their revenue. I understand that. There are 300,000 people on our island employed in tourism.

Do I have to talk to you, too, about the relevance to the amendment?

The point I am trying to show in the round is that we are trying to facilitate a bit of common sense here. Deputy Collins always talks about common sense. In the 25 key areas where I am trying to bring in housing, there are families who cannot get accommodation. Right around their estates and communities, they can see housing being used for only two or three weekends a month and they cannot get accommodation. Surely there is an obligation on the Government to do something about that and not let it unfold in front of society. Equally, as a tourism Minister, I have to ensure I am not jeopardising capacity in rural areas. That is why I am bringing forward my accommodation strategy to tackle that policy position in tandem and ensure we have a planned, evidence-based approach. What tourism operators really welcome is that we are going to bring in a host of evidence. Best policy is made with evidence. We are going to bring a host of evidence through registrations with Fáilte Ireland about people's patterns and stays and where people are coming from to give us the best opportunity to respond with the best policy. I absolutely hear people's concerns, but I think we are getting the right balance.

The Minister has answered my question, in fairness to him. It took a while to get it out of him, but he answered it. He said everybody who is going to apply for retention of planning over seven years should have had their planning correct anyway. In most cases, however, the sight lines were slightly different 15 years ago. In most cases, you did not need disability access. You used septic tanks. All of that was there, so the retention of planning means they will have to go through that type of process to make sure they are fully compliant, which most homes are not.

That does not mean that they are bad homes or dangerous homes; it means that the people involved have continuously delivered Airbnb all over parts of west Cork I could name - I would be all night doing it - and now planning compliance is going to be thrown at them in the context of retentions of planning. By God, I know what a retention of planning means for people. I know what planning permission is for them. The bottom line is that this is the biggest fear here. There is a presumption to grant. I do not look at that type of writing on paperwork at all. I want a guarantee here that the people in question will not get a visit and that they will only have to register and fully comply. I fully agree with the latter.

I have a serious concern about the rates aspect, and they could be falling into difficulties with that too. However, that might come up in other questions. As has been stated, the bottom line is that they should have been planning compliant in any event, that the rules and regulations have changed for a lot of homes and that they are now going to be caught under this system.

I acknowledge the clarity that the Minister has brought here. That clarity would have been brought forward had Committee Stage been taken by the select committee. The key point relates to resources for local authorities and the fact that there will be additional, ring-fenced personnel. For that reason, I will be pressing this amendment.

I accept that point from Deputy Conway-Walsh. I have been advised by the Minister, Deputy Browne, that over the last three years he has increased those in planning. The simplified process is meant to provide for decisions being made quickly and efficiently; it is not meant to be a cumbersome process. I will discuss with the Minister the concerns that the Deputies have raised. I am happy to do that and have no issue with doing it. I want to assure people that this is a simplified process that I want to get through in order to ensure that we get a good balance in the legislation.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“4.The Minister shall within six months of the passing of this Act lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas setting out the operation of the short-term letting register in Gaeltacht communities, including the number of properties registered and the number of properties where enforcement action has been taken for non-compliance with the requirements of the register including planning compliance.”.

Much of the conversation we have been having about rural areas has not considered the specific challenges for our Gaeltacht communities. As the Minister will know from his time in planning and from his time as Minister, there is an acute housing shortage in those communities. People whose children are growing up there are not able to access accommodation. Irish-language speakers and people who are learning the language and want to live in those communities are excluded from doing so because of a lack of adequate accommodation. Nobody is saying there should not be appropriate tourism products in these areas. I often think of the Connemara Gaeltacht, where there is little mainstream tourist accommodation in an area of enormous tourism potential. In fact, the tourist economy is one of the main employers there and, therefore, the balance has to be struck. However, it is simply unacceptable that a commercial entity with an office in London can buy up scores of family homes in the Connemara Gaeltacht and be able to let them in the short term. The planning policy statement and how it sets out the rules, in particular for the seven-year grandfather clause but also for the more general planning rules, does not take sufficient account of those particular challenges. It is the case that in both instances there is a reference to the language planning conditions in that local authority area. The difficulty is that in many cases they are not adhered to in the first place. Some of the properties we are talking about may not be covered by those language planning conditions. This is probably the clearest example of risk. In rural high amenity and high tourism areas with severe housing and affordable housing challenges, there is a real risk that this regime will be too lenient, not on the family operators using properties within the curtilage of their own family home or the home itself but on commercial operators, which are having a detrimental impact on the ability of people to live and thrive in our Gaeltacht communities. Those operators may be allowed to continue to operate.

In the design and drafting of the register and in the Minister's conversations with the Minister, Deputy Browne, and the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, were there specific conversations about how this would operate in those Gaeltacht communities? Was there an understanding of the challenges, particularly those arising from commercial operators not rooted in the community snapping up family homes? Does the Minister share the concern on this side of the House that if we do not get the planning aspect right, particularly with respect to the language planning conditions as set out in the planning policy statement, we could have a real problem in that properties which should not be in short-term letting and should revert to long-term residential occupation, as they were intended, will not do so, despite the Minister's claims to the contrary?

As the Minister is aware, there is a particular housing crisis in our Gaeltacht areas. They are the repositories of our national language. They are the beating heart of what still remains of our language and are essential to the continuation and survival of our language. A number of organisations that work in Gaeltacht areas, including Conradh na Gaeilge, BÁNÚ, the Tinteán Housing Association and Threshold, have set out and requested a number of amendments, which we have put forward, in consideration of this point and to make an exception for Gaeltacht areas. It would apply in particular in the context of the two-year extension. There would also be a specific Gaeltacht area requirement around change-of-use planning that would completely restrict the use of short-term lets in housing in Gaeltacht areas.

Tá an ghéarchéim tithíochta uafásach sna ceantair Ghaeltachta. Níl aon tithe ar fáil do na daoine óga agus tá ár dteanga i mbaol. That is the reality. The issue of short-term lets is one of the topics about which we have seen people from across the country, but especially those from our Gaeltacht areas, protest. Big demonstrations have been organised in recent years. There has been a significant amount of activism on the ground in Gaeltacht areas, specifically in relation to the way in which there are so many properties, which are used as primary properties, on Airbnb. Young people in our Gaeltacht areas cannot get a home or start a family. There is, therefore, a specific requirement to intervene on this basis. I ask the Minister to support this amendment and others. I ask him to take them on board and show that the Government is willing to restrict the inappropriate use of short-term lets in Gaeltacht areas. I ask him to apply the change-of-use planning restriction from 1 December, as is required for areas with a population of over 20,000, and to remove the grandfather clause for Gaeltacht areas. These areas need specific support. If the Government is genuine in its commitment to, and support for, the Irish language and Gaeltacht areas, it would accept and put in place these amendments. Otherwise, it will be making a mistake and letting down our Gaeltacht areas, our language and its future. I plead with the Minister to accept the amendment.

Tá a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil géarchéim tithíochta inár gceantair Ghaeltachta,. Mar atá luaite ag mo chomhghleacaí, an Teachta Ó Broin, atá anseo in aice liom, tá na ceantair seo an-tábhachtach, ní hamháin do na ceantair iad féin ach dár dtír ina iomláine i dtaobh chúrsaí teanga agus cultúir de agus i dtaobh chur chun cinn na Gaelainne agus an Ghaelainn, ár dteanga náisiúnta, a choimeád mar theanga bheo inár dtír. Tá an cheist seo an-tábhachtach chomh maith i gcomhair daoine óga agus clanna óga atá ag iarraidh a gclanna a thógáil trí mheán na Gaelainne ina gceantair dhúchais sna ceantair Ghaeltachta seo. Tá na tithe teaghlaigh atá ar fáil ar cíos gearrthéarmach ag cur isteach ar an margadh, ar an líon tithe agus ar na féidearthachtaí atá ar fáil do na daoine seo filleadh – filleadh atá ann in an-chuid cásanna – ar na ceantair Ghaeltachta chun a gclanna a thógáil ann nó, nuair atá siad ag iarraidh, teaghlach nua a bhunú.

Mar sin, tá an leasú seo curtha isteach ag mo chomhghleacaithe atá anseo in aice liom ionas go mbeadh ar a laghad monatóireacht ag dul ar aghaidh ionas go mbeadh baill an Rialtais airdeallach mar gheall air seo agus iad ag féachaint ar an ngéarchéim sin agus an reachtaíocht seo á cur i gcrích. Tá sé an-tábhachtach go mbeadh súil ar an gceist áirithe seo agus muid ag caint air seo, go mbeadh tionchar agus drochthionchar na tithe seo a bheith ar fáil ar chíos ghearrthéarmach aitheanta agus go dtarraingeofaí aird air.

The Minister does not need me to tell him that there is an existential crisis facing Gaeltacht areas because of the housing crisis. There are many causes of that, including the lack of affordable housing delivery, the lack of social housing delivery, price pressures, particularly in Gaeltacht and coastal Gaeltacht areas where there is considerable demand for houses, and the preponderance of holiday homes. A part of it is that family homes are used in some cases for short-term letting. I do not mean in any way to negate the fact that there is a need for tourist accommodation and tourism in our Gaeltacht areas and that many people engage with short-term lettings for that purpose, and do so quite legitimately. However, we must be conscious of the fact that in some cases there are commercial operators that are taking the proverbial and utilising a significant number of what would otherwise be family homes. In doing so, they are driving up prices and reducing supply, making it incredible difficult for young families, in particular, to return in many cases to their native communities to raise families and the next generation of Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment, which is reasonable, and asks the Government to monitor the situation and lay a report on the impact on Gaeltacht areas within six months of the legislation becoming law.

I will explain the intention of this amendment. I live in a Gaeltacht area. The key is appropriate use. We must get the balance right. There are challenges in housing in Gaeltacht areas. There are also challenges in respect of the language. We also have language tourism. People need to come to Gaeltacht areas to learn the language. We have mná tí there but we need other accommodation options for people who want to come on a short-term basis and who are interested in and want to learn the Irish language.

I also point out that it is important to protect smaller family homes and the income they need. Many people who live in Gaeltacht areas live on very low incomes as it is. This is also a source of income for them. This is where we get to the crux of the difference between the huge commercial operators and the small, family-run businesses. Within the Gaeltacht are designated areas of special areas of conservation, SACs, and all of the other designations.

We need to be able to facilitate planning permissions where all the environmental standards are upheld but where there are family members, who are most often Gaeilgeoirs themselves, who want to return to the area to raise their children through Irish as well. We need here to preserve the promotion of the language, but this speaks as well to why we need the autonomy for local authorities to be able to make the decisions here, to look at a Gaeltacht area, such as Béal an Mhuirthead, and be able to say that this is how many houses it needs here, this is how many homes we need built here, and this is how much accommodation we need for people to be able to come and learn the language and to have a thriving tourist - I will not call it "industry" because it is so much smaller than that - sector within those areas to be able to have a local, thriving economy.

Obviously, the key to all of this is to build more social and affordable homes within the Gaeltacht areas, to build them quicker so that people can live within their own areas and that we can have the proper services and supports in that. These two things are not exclusionary, but it is important. The reason this amendment is tabled is for us to be able to properly monitor what is happening in the areas and what is needed in terms of accommodation and in terms of the local tourist economy. We can achieve this within the Bill, but I would like the Minister to accept the amendment so that we have the proper evidence and data to be able to do that.

I have deep concerns about this Bill. I have deep concerns about people in Gaeltacht areas and in rural areas in particular. So many families sustain themselves through income generated from tourism. That is a reality. Mayo, in particular, is a rural economy and tourism is one of the most important sectors in terms of employment and the economy. Thousands of businesses are sustained by the fact we have tourists coming to Mayo.

The question we must ask ourselves is where these people will stay. Where will the people stay who want to come to the Gaeltacht areas in Mayo, for example? The reality is we do not have enough hotels and the ones we have were commandeered by the Government. They took over the hotel beds for international protection accommodation services, IPAS, centres because of an utter mismanagement of the migration system, the vast majority of which, we know now, were unnecessary. That is important to say. The reason it is important to say-----

It is not relevant.

-----is because we have a shortage of hotel beds.

It is not relevant. I explained earlier we stick to the relevance within the amendment. Read the amendment. That is not relevant.

It is relevant.

It is not relevant.

The reason it is relevant is because I come from a rural county. I come from an area where we have a strong Gaeltacht and I know. I am speaking for these families - the families who rely on tourism. If we allow a situation where we restrict and contract the number of tourist beds, we will equally have a massive impact-----

That is not what the amendment is about.

-----in terms of the Gaeltacht area. I am asking the Minister to allow the amendments that are practical here today in relation to supporting the small indigenous businesses which rely on tourist beds. I strongly advise the Minister to consider that.

I am concerned by what some of the speakers to this amendment, especially the ones at the start, said. The answer to the housing problem is not anything we are going to do here tonight. The answer is to build more houses and to go after the vacant houses that there is no one inside of, tourist or else, that are everywhere. There has been no one inside them and the answer is to encourage and entice people to use those houses that are vacant.

To suggest that Gaeltacht areas should be treated the same as the areas of over 20,000 population is unfair and an unfortunate statement to make. In west Kerry, the Gaeltacht - Dunquin, Ceann Trá, Ballyferriter, Ballydavid and all those places - is very far away from hotels, and when people go down there, they need some place to stay. If you are going to say that you will rule out short-term lets there, you will do a pile of harm to the local economy down there.

Relevant to this amendment.

Yes, but they spoke this way about it. They wanted the Gaeltacht areas - they said it here, loud and clear - to be included with the lot over the 20,000 population. That is wrong, that is hurtful and I will not listen to that without talking up for those people. Those people down there depend on that tourism income. For a lot of them, that is all they have. That is what is keeping the few schools that are there going.

The Deputy can shout for the next hour but I want it to be relevant to the amendment.

It is relevant.

I am afraid it is not.

I am saying again to the Minister-----

I am going to move to the next speaker.

The amount of houses that the Government will get back out of this short-term let trying to put people out of this business will be very little, if any.

Thank you.

The Government must continue building houses-----

Thank you.

-----and do something to entice people with vacant houses to give them back-----

I call Deputy Michael Collins.

-----and leave the people with the short-term lets alone.

In relation to the Gaeltachts, parts of west Cork are Gaeltacht - down in Ballingeary and Cape Clear Island. I was talking earlier on today about a crisis that is going on there with nurses. They have one but every time she is off, they have no cover there. The funny thing is, I cannot understand. Meaning no disrespect - I had better not mention names because people get annoyed here - you would have someone, maybe from Dublin, telling me, basically, how Cape Clear works. That is not the way. I would not go up and tell them how Dublin works. It does not work that way.

These people in the Gaeltacht are totally dependent on tourism for their survival, whether in Ballingeary or Cape Clear. There is not a huge amount of homeless in those areas, but they are certainly depending on valuable tourism. The mothers out there - it is mainly women that roll out that service, in the Gaeltacht and throughout west Cork and other places - are trying to get a little side income. They are not being made millionaires by this, as the Minister will be aware. They are not making a lot of money and the hassle and the stress about this Bill going through because of the confusion or whatever is unreal. Deputy Butler, the Chief Whip, said they are the only thing. People stood. We had approximately 50 or 60 supporting it, but when it came time to press the button, they forgot about which way to go. They did a totally different type of vote.

Deputy-----

Sorry, yes. We are talking about the Gaeltacht. The bottom line is-----

We are actually not talking about them. People have, but the amendment is-----

The amendment is to provide evidence about effects on Gaeltacht operators without-----

Amendment No. 4.

-----itself adding new restrictions. Amendment No. 4 is what I have.

Go ahead.

That is why I am talking about the Gaeltachts, Cape Clear and Ballingeary. There is not a major lack of accommodation there but there certainly is a thriving tourism sector that now will be ended if these planning laws are going to strike in in two years.

I accept they will get two years. The Minister said on numerous occasions that they are all right and they will be sorted out in two years and should not be worrying too much at all. That is not what these people want. These people want to continue their business, and the pubs are thriving because of it, especially in the summer. People come from all over the country into Cape Clear. They come from all over the country and the world into Ballingeary and places like that because they can go down, have a little bit of music, have a little bit of food, and go around and meet people. It has such a knock-on effect in these Gaeltacht areas. It is their very survival. I am asking the Minister, I am asking Fine Gael and I am asking Fianna Fáil - I am here three and a half hours and four hours last week asking them - to withdraw the planning aspect in rural communities and, by God, we will support that Bill.

Now there is a serious concern, given that they are going to be registered in Gaeltacht areas and others. The Ceann Comhairle is watching me tight.

Always.

I am delighted the Ceann Comhairle is.

Will they end up being rated as well? That question has not been answered and I am very concerned if that is the road the Minister is travelling.

The bottom line is that we are talking about the Gaeltacht areas and I will take a strong stance that those areas in west Cork will not support any type of legislative provision that would affect tourism in some way. I am a believer that when people are talking about a crisis in Dublin, Galway and other cities, they should not be looking to the Gaeltacht areas to sort out those problems. That will not resolve the crisis. Not all rural areas can be Gaeltacht areas but there are issues in rural areas. The Minister should not be doing that but it is what this Bill is all about. Rural communities are being attacked to try to deal with major problems that need to be resolved in the cities. The Gaeltacht areas are thriving thanks to tourism.

I have serious reservations about what is being proposed. I would have loved to have heard from people from the Gaeltacht at the committee. That should have happened. They should have been brought up here and allowed to tell us the value of tourism and of short-term letting. That is what has been lost in this debate.

I will be brief. Tá suim mhór agam sa Ghaeilge. Bhí Caisléan Nua, an áit inar rugadh mé, ina bhreac-Ghaeltacht go dtí 1965. Tá an-suim ag daoine sa cheantar i nGaeltacht, nó breac-Ghaeltacht, a thosú arís. Tá súil agam go mbeimis ábalta sin a thosú arís. Is mór an trua é go bhfuil an Bille seo ag dul sa treo seo. I am very disappointed with these proposals. I said that at the outset and I have kept my counsel all evening because I thought we would get to discuss some of the amendments put down by Deputy Michael Healy-Rae and me. Obviously, that will not happen now. There is a filibuster going on here, which is quite clear to see. I am disappointed by what is being proposed even for the Gaeltacht areas. I think it was Pádraig Pearse who said a nation is not a nation without its language. We are not nurturing our language. I know this Bill is not specifically about the language but we cannot compare a Gaeltacht area with an area with a population of over 20,000. Tá brón orm.

Táim thar a bheith sásta tacaíocht a thabhairt don leasú seo agus thar a bheith buíoch do mo chomhghleacaithe as ucht an leasú seo a chur síos. Tá a fhios ag chuile dhuine gur bagairt ollmhór í don Ghaeltacht an ghéarchéim tithíochta go háirithe maidir le ligeanacha gearrthéarmacha atá faoi úinéireacht infheisteoirí institiúideacha atá thall i Londain. This amendment is really important because the single biggest Airbnb operator in the Gaeltacht is Sykes Cottages, which is majority owned by Vitruvian Partners in London. As Deputy Hearne alluded to earlier, change of use should be mandated in Gaeltacht areas. We need stricter planning rules because of the way these large, almost institutional, Airbnb operators based in London are, in essence, taking homes out of the long-term market that could otherwise be used by families. That is why it is really important that we have the evidence, by way of a report, in order that we can monitor the situation and come back in six months to look at it again specifically in relation to Gaeltacht areas. I strongly urge the Government to support the amendment.

I thank all the Members for their contributions. I will begin with the technical response, after which I will give my views on issues raised.

This amendment, as drafted, cannot be supported as it relies on the term "Gaeltacht communities", which has no established legal definition. The absence of a clear definition would create uncertainty regarding the areas covered by the proposed reporting requirement and could lead to inconsistencies in its application.

Based on what some speakers said, there seems to be confusion about what is in the Bill. The first point to clarify is that we are not treating Gaeltacht areas the same as towns or cities with a population of more than 20,000. I want to make it very clear that the Bill is not doing that. The amendment proposes that a report be brought forward in connection with the Gaeltacht areas. In fact, under the Bill, the status quo remains as I outlined earlier in terms of the seven-year requirement, etc.

I listened to what Deputies said regarding Gaeltacht areas. This is an issue I was very familiar with when I was Minister of State with responsibility for planning. I remember a meeting I had near Ballydavid with Mr. Breanndán Ó Beaglaoich, who featured in a documentary called "The Man with the Moving House" and who later won his case to secure planning permission. I recall him outlining the challenges for people in Gaeltacht areas, which are very acute. We were doing work on that in the Department of housing at that time. The Minister, Deputy Browne, and the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, have brought forward a new planning policy statement on rural and Gaeltacht housing to introduce additional protections for people in respect of rural housing.

We have liaised with the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht on these provisions. The one concern that came back from Gaeltacht areas in relation to the Bill, from our consultation and our observations, was in regard to student accommodation and the requirement to register as short-term lets. That is the one issue that was raised in the feedback we received. The Deputies will see from the planning statement that in regard to the development management process, there is reference to planning conditions relating to Irish-language protections. That is a pretty significant protection in terms of approvals through the planning process. Although it is not part of this Bill, there are other mechanisms by means of which we need to do more to protect our Gaeltacht communities, protect the language and ensure we grow the opportunity there.

In terms of this Bill, we need to achieve a balance in terms of providing accommodation in Gaeltacht areas. Tourist accommodation is needed because tourism is the lifeblood of those areas and people there really depend on tourists. Obviously, we do not want to see unintended consequences, with communities feeling under pressure because houses are being taken out for tourism. That is a wider planning issue with which Custom House must grapple.

I mentioned to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle earlier that it would have made a lot more sense for amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, to be taken together because they all propose a similar insertion after the same line in the Bill, whereas some of the other amendments, including amendments Nos. 6 and 48 - the latter will not be reached - refer to different parts of the legislation. In effect, what we have had is a debate for the past three and a half hours calling for the Minister to issue a report. He is not going to support this particular amendment regarding Gaeltacht areas. We have had more interactions involving party housing spokespersons during this debate than from Deputies dealing with tourism.

That is the flaw in not having a proper Committee Stage debate and also tying in the planning regulations and the absolutely worthwhile need to free up housing, even in Gaeltacht areas. Unfortunately, we have not reached most of the amendments. I would have supported this amendment in general terms just as I would have supported in principle the previous three amendments. Colleagues may have noticed that I abstained in the decision on amendment No. 3, which was for the simple reason that we will not reach the other amendments, including some I would like to see included in the Bill. As such, this will be my final contribution. If we cannot debate those amendments, I cannot support the Bill and, unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment. I cannot support a proposal and then vote against it later on in the context of the vote on the Bill itself. It is unfortunate that we have not had a proper debate in the House.

On that point, there is no timeframe in that this is a four-hour open debate and Members can speak for as long as they wish as long as it is relevant. I do not like to interrupt Members but they have to respect what Deputy Gogarty has said about reaching everybody's amendments, given the opportunity. Speakers' contributions must be relevant to the amendment being discussed, and that applies to everybody.

For the people who really wanted us to do work here tonight, it is so disappointing that we are where we are.

That is not relevant to the amendment. I accept the perspective that has been put forward.

I am speaking in respect of amendment No. 4 and the fact we will not get very much further out of a total of 71 amendments. With no disrespect to the colleagues who tabled the amendments we have dealt with, there were meatier amendments we wanted to get to but, unfortunately, the clock has been talked down here tonight.

As far as I am concerned, the sector has been let down because we have not been able to debate important amendments. At this stage, all we can do is plead with the Minister to take on board the consensus of what we are trying to achieve. We are where we are. We did not get to knuckle down and get through the job of work we wanted to do. It is very disappointing.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“4.The Minister shall within six months of the passing of this Act lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report assessing:

(a) the impact of the implementation of this Act on the supply of short-term letting accommodation operated as family-run enterprises in rural and high-amenity tourism areas, including any reduction in the availability of such accommodation, and

(b) whether the implementation of this Act has resulted in an increase in the number of properties previously used for short-term letting by commercial investors being returned to the long-term residential rental or housing market.”.

This requires an early assessment of the impact of family-run accommodation in rural and high amenity areas and whether commercial short lets return to residential use. Regulations should address the commercialisation of housing without unnecessarily damaging family-run tourism businesses. It must deliver measurable housing benefits. Regarding farm enterprises, it is vital that we protect small operators from disproportionate impacts. In the rural economy, we must also protect tourism accommodation where hotels are limited in rural areas. Family-run accommodation must be treated differently to commercial investors and their large portfolios. We must avoid unintended consequences and accurately measure any loss of tourism accommodation and associated economic effects.

The amendment also examines whether commercial short-term lets are returning to the housing market. It addresses proportionate regulation and supports adjustments where evidence justifies them. A community balance protecting local employment and permanent housing is required. I remind Members that those of us who have put forward these amendments probably spoke less on them than other Members. That is the nature of how we do business. We have tried our best to make the Bill as palatable as possible.

I was here for a number of hours debating this Bill last week and have been here again tonight. The Minister made things very clear from the beginning. There is no point in me talking about all of our amendments - I tabled 12 amendments. The Minister made it very clear from the beginning that he would not take any of the amendments. In fairness, that is what he said. That is what I picked up on. On that basis, it would be fantastic if we had an opportunity to debate the amendments but if he will not accept them we will be back to square one.

From the word go, including the vote in the Dáil yesterday, the Bill should have had pre-legislative scrutiny. All of our amendments would have been debated. We are talking about family-run rural accommodation. The Bill could ruin that. The mistake was made when the Bill did not go through that process. We were promised that, but unfortunately it was not delivered.

We want to talk about family-run rural accommodation and people's concerns. This is probably my final time debating this. I have a funny feeling that I will be back here in the next two years telling the Minister where things went wrong and about families who have lost income. That is a serious concern for me in respect of the people of west Cork and nationally. My phone was on fire from all over the country. People in Galway, Wexford, Waterford were on the phone to me requesting that I ask questions, and told me there is no clarity. Families need that. That is all they ask for.

People are running simple and basic, but extremely successful, businesses in rural communities and it appears that the Minister has used a hammer to crack a nut. It appears as if rural tourism will have to be sidelined to make sure that homes in cities will be accommodated. That is not how the system works. The Minister does not seem to understand that. Last week, I said that Durrus will not sort out Dublin city's crisis. Dublin city does need to have its housing crisis sorted.

If the Bill goes in the direction I think it will, the loss of finances for families providing accommodation will last for many. As the Minister keeps saying, they got a reprieve for two years, but that is only kicking the can down the road. People cannot afford that. It was a side income for many families; they are not making a fortune. Last week I told the House that in 1975 my mother provided bed and breakfast accommodation. We were all hurled into one room when she let four rooms upstairs to different couples because it put bread and butter on our table. I have nothing to do with Airbnb, and neither does any of my family. I have no skin in the game. I understood the business. We have to understand it to be able to talk about it.

I knew someone who was giving out about farming, but they never wore a pair of wellingtons. They should not talk about farming; they do not wear farm wellingtons. People do not know about this type of rural tourism. People who stayed in my mother's home in 1975 went to the town, bought food, went out to the islands off the coast of west Cork and had a great time. They went back with a great feeling about west Cork, Kerry or wherever. It now appears that such businesses are in jeopardy because we are worried about a housing crisis in cities. Rural accommodation provided a small income, but that system is in serious jeopardy if the Bill is passed as far as I am concerned because the Minister is not able to clarify the planning aspect to me.

I accept that the Minister did try to clarify quite a lot of things, and people thanked me on the phone for that, but there are other issues. I know for a fact that if the Bill is passed as it is I will be back here in the next two years explaining to the Minister that planners came to people's doors and he told them what to do. The Minister has told me people had to have planning anyway. Things change, and they can change dramatically. There will be a huge loss to the local rural economy of this country and families who wanted some side income. I ask the Minister to step back and consider the rural aspect and the damage that will be caused to people.

I have enormous sympathy for the comments from Deputies Healy-Rae and Gogarty on the nature of the debate. It is not adequate that a short-term letting register Bill, predicated on fundamental changes to planning law, is progressed without any scrutiny or debate of that planning law. I accept it is not the fault of the Minister, but collective Cabinet responsibility still holds and he is the only one in front of us.

This is the only time since this entire episode began in 2022 that there has been a debate on the planning proposals agreed by Cabinet a week ago. That is the real frustration. I respectfully disagree with Deputy Healy-Rae in that there is a logic to some of these amendments, namely that the Government is making claims that the planning policy statement and register will have a number of impacts. We are trying to force the Government to report on those impacts so that if our concerns are correct and the Government claims do not come to pass, there would be evidence that we can then use to make the case that the Government should change tack.

Amendment No. 5 is probably the most important of the amendments tabled by me and Deputy Conway-Walsh because it gets to the nub of the two core elements. On the one hand, there is the Government's claim that this will assist small family businesses in regularising their planning arrangements in terms of getting on the register and being properly regulated in rural high-amenity tourism areas. At the same time, in those larger population centres a significant number of long-term residential units will be brought back into use. That is what is at the core of this amendment.

My strong and considered view, as somebody who has been in favour of the proposed register since the Minister, Darragh O'Brien, and then Minister, Catherine Martin, introduced it four years ago, is that the Government got the planning policy statement badly wrong and is not willing to engage in any constructive way with the kind of reporting mechanisms we are calling for, including this amendment. The only disagreement I have with some of the other spokespeople on the Opposition benches is that the regulations are exceptionally weak. Where they are weakest is in larger urban areas. I believe the Minister was making a genuine claim when he said that a number of properties which were designed and built for long-term residential occupation in large urban areas would be brought back into use. They will not be and the amendment would provide evidence to show that the Minister was correct or we were wrong and vice versa.

We will spend enormous amounts of time, and time will be spent tying up the Minister's officials with parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests in six or 12 months' time, trying to get the information that an orderly reporting process would provide.

I have probably been here as long as the Minister, and I know these types of amendments are not accepted. However, I would urge him to do something his colleague in the Department of housing has started to do, which is voluntarily produce periodic reports on significant changes. In respect of this, because this is very important, there is a requirement, whether on an annual basis or whatever, for the Minister to lay before the Houses and publish on the respective websites of the two Departments the core outcomes that will demonstrate whether this Bill is doing what it should do. For example, the Department of housing has started publishing monthly figures on defective concrete blocks. Deputies Conway-Walsh, Mac Lochlainn, Doherty and I used to have to drag that information kicking and screaming out of the Minister and his overworked officials in the Department of housing, but they now publish it monthly. It is very good data. I am not suggesting we need something monthly, but we need something on a more regular basis.

I would have really liked to be here supporting this Bill. The idea of a registry is an eminently sensible one. It is important to remember the reason the register was proposed in the first place. It was because planning enforcement did not work under the old regulatory regime as Eoghan Murphy said it would. In the absence, however, of proper planning rules, proper planning enforcement and sufficient staff, this is not a Bill that my colleagues or I can support. That is regrettable because the regulation of the industry is needed and the register is needed. However, if the fundamental foundation upon which all of this is based, the planning policy statement, is so badly drafted and designed and chronically under-resourced, then the register, which fundamentally is about bringing properties that should be in long-term residential occupation back into use while regulating good-quality family tourism product in rural areas, will not be able to fulfil those functions adequately. On that basis, the Bill is not worthy of support.

I have no issue with a register. It is a sensible thing to introduce. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. My problem is with the difference between the Minister's interpretation of the planning laws and that of the planners in each area. The Minister said he used to have responsibility for planning. I have been involved in planning nearly all my life, as long as I have been in construction. It will be up to each individual area in the planning sector to interpret this in its own way, whereas if a person went in for a short-term let at the moment, they would not get it. Ask the planning authorities. They have told people that no short-term lets will get planning. This is what they are being told.

What is the relevance?

The relevance is that this examines the impact of family rural accommodation and whatever investor-owned properties return to housing. Even if you go for a new planning application at the moment, you cannot get a short-term let. The Minister is saying it is about getting what we have at the moment regularised. All he had to do was introduce a register. Anyone who was not there within seven years, for example, would have to go back to regularise their planning, and then all the Government had to do was bring in a simple rule. It would have its register and would know what was there, and then it can validate the good ones and the ones that are poor. That would be done by people who actually live in this accommodation in these short-term lets. They would evaluate it themselves online with a star rating. That is what they would regulate. If the Minister had put an incentive in place, however, a lot more of them would bring long-term lets back into it.

How many people have left these shores because they could not stay here and short-term let out their house? What is the Government going to do now if the properties have been let long term and people cannot get back into them? Why not come up with common-sense policies and simplify something? The Government did not simplify it. It actually complicated it. What it has done is put it down the road for all the local authorities to have different interpretations. This is despite the current housing policies and the new planning guidelines, which have not been introduced and have been sent from the door here, and this is to do with planning. They have not been introduced yet even for housing that currently exists. The new planning guidelines for people who want to build on their own land have not been introduced. I asked the Minister for housing last week and he has not replied to me. Where are the new guidelines? The Minister has said that it is about the guidelines and what he has put down in planning regulation. The Government cannot deal with the planning regulation as it is and now it wants to allow local authorities to interpret how they implement the Government's policy. I do not believe it will work. I deal with the local authorities every day. They are people who like to do things right. They will say they are not going to follow whatever interpretation the Minister has because their interpretation will be different.

Deputy Murphy has just ten seconds, I am afraid.

I cannot say a lot in ten seconds.

That is fine.

I ask the Minister to keep this under review. My concern relates to the inconsistency across local authorities-----

I am afraid that is it, Deputy.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle.

Unfortunately, the time permitted for the debate has expired. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 10 November: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Schedule and Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

Protection of Young Persons (Employment in Food and Beverage Services Sector) Regulations 2026,

a copy of which has been laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 24th September, 2026.

I move amendment No. 1:

To insert the following after "Dáil Éireann":

"notes that:

— the draft Protection of Young Persons (Employment in Food and Beverage Services Sector) Regulations 2026 will permit employers throughout the food and beverage services sector, and not only in licensed premises, to employ young persons aged 16 and 17 years until 11 p.m.;

— Section 15 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000, provides for employees under the age of 20 years to be paid a prescribed percentage of the national minimum hourly rate of pay, and that the percentages currently prescribed under that Section allow employers to pay employees under 18 years of age less than the full national minimum hourly rate of pay;

— the Regulations will therefore extend late-evening working for young persons in a low-paid sector, while those young persons may lawfully be paid less than adult colleagues doing the same work at the same hours; and

— Section 15(4) of that Act sets a minimum, but no maximum, percentage, and the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment may therefore prescribe a percentage of 100 per cent by order, without further legislation;

believes that young persons who do the same work, at the same hours, as adult employees, should receive the same rate of pay, and that the national minimum wage should be replaced by a living wage;

calls on the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to:

— prescribe, under Section 15 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000, a percentage of 100 per cent in respect of each category of employee referred to in that Section, and to bring forward legislation to repeal that Section; and

— introduce a statutory living wage; and".

I must now deal with a postponed division relating to the motion regarding toll charges and the cost of living. On Tuesday, 10 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.