Military Neutrality
7. Deputy John Clendennen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to clarify the precise change to the triple lock that recently announced legislation will result in; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48880/25]
11. Deputy Donna McGettigan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his plans for the triple lock given recent comments by the Minister for Health and by other members of the Government proposing to scrap or undermine it, despite it being the expressed will of the people to retain it. [48759/25]
12. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he plans to remove the triple lock by the end of 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49151/25]
39. Deputy Mark Ward asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to provide details of the Government’s decision to remove the triple lock; if the UN General Assembly can sanction peacekeeping missions by bypassing a veto at the UN Security Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49268/25]
55. Deputy John Clendennen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if the proposed changes to the triple lock will impact Ireland's policy of being militarily neutral; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48881/25]
For clarity, I am going to go with Questions Nos. 7 and 55 together. The Government's intention is to change legislation to the triple lock mechanism that governs the deployment of Irish troops overseas. At present, as the Tánaiste knows, that requires the approval of the Government, the Dáil and a mandate from the United Nations. Could he clarify precisely what changes are now being proposed, and outline if this will materially affect both Ireland's tradition of neutrality and the democratic safeguards that have existed up to this point?
Does Deputy McGettigan want to add to that quickly?
No.
Deputy Murphy, quickly.
I will bluntly ask this question of the Tánaiste. Where does he want to send troops that he cannot currently send them under the triple lock? Does he agree with the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the call of the so-called coalition of the willing, where he is willing to send Irish troops on the ground, presumably without an agreed UN peacekeeping mission? Otherwise, that would meet the requirements of the triple lock. Where does the Tánaiste want to send troops that he cannot currently send them?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 39 and 55 together. There is a very fair question on this later. The deployment of any troops to Ukraine would have to be in the context of a peace agreement. We are not talking about sending our troops to a warzone or a place where there is an active war. It would only be in the context of a peace agreement. I do not believe we should recuse ourselves from that conversation. Our peacekeepers serve with absolute distinction. I am open to considering their being sent on a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine, if there was peace. However, all the talk about peace is happening while Putin continues his reign of terror. We might return to that in a moment.
I thank Deputy Clendennen for his questions. I previously clarified my intentions with regard to the proposed amendments to legislation governing the overseas deployment of the Defence Forces in the proposed defence (amendment) Bill. This was agreed by Cabinet on 4 March this year. As I mentioned, the pre-legislative scrutiny process which provided an Oireachtas all-party committee with the opportunity to examine the Heads of the Bill and to consult directly with stakeholders on the draft heads of the Bill, was completed at the end of July. I thank the committee for its work. My Department is examining the committee’s report on the matter. We will give serious consideration to the recommendations the committee has put forward, some of which are very sensible.
Under the current proposals in the general ]scheme to amend the existing legislation, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. I wish to underline that the legislation in place currently allows members of the UN Security Council, by means of a veto or often a threat of a veto, to bind Ireland's hands in its international engagement. The veto by a UN Security Council member on a proposed resolution for a full and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza on 4 June last is further evidence of this and it is simply untenable for the Government to continue with this policy.
I strongly believe therefore that such considerations on international engagement should be within our sovereign control and the decision making within remain the remit of the Government and the Dáil, which have been democratically elected by the people of Ireland.
I recognise, however, that in removing the UN Security Council mandate requirement, alternative safeguards are needed to underpin the future despatch of Defence Forces personnel. I am genuinely up for having a detailed discussion on this when we produce the full Bill and, therefore, in parallel to removing the UN mandate requirement, I have proposed that the governing principles will be included in law and will be underpinned in primary legislation. These have been proposed in the Bill I published. It will require that the mandate of these operations must be consistent with and must adhere to the principles of the UN Charter and international law. These principles are being refined further to ensure appropriate legal effect as part of the drafting process. I say on the record of the House that I am open to considering whether they need to be tightened further or whether other structures need to be put in place because we owe it to any Irish peacekeepers and want to make sure they are deployed on a peacekeeping mission only in line with UN Charter and in line with international law. That is this country's record of peacekeeping.
As I mentioned earlier, it is my intention is to bring this Bill to the Government in the coming months. The speed at which that Bill progresses is a matter for the Oireachtas. I hope to commence discussion on the Bill this year. There will be plenty of time, as there needs to be, to debate the draft legislation in the Dáil and the Seanad, and ample opportunity to scrutinise the proposals at each stage.
Concerning the role of the UN General Assembly, the UN Charter unequivocally sets out the primacy of the UN Security Council with regard to all matters relating to international peace and security. While the General Assembly can make recommendations to member states, resolutions of the General Assembly cannot compel action. The charter is clear on that. Ultimately, while the UN General Assembly can make recommendations to member states, under the UN Charter the Security Council alone has the power to take decisions which member states are obliged to implement. In practice, therefore, UN peacekeeping operations are only ever deployed on the basis of mandates from the UN Security Council and overseas deployments to peacekeeping operations involving the Defence Forces has only ever taken place on the basis of that Security Council mandate.
Finally, as I have outlined and I wish to continue to stress, the Government has been clear that it has no desire to alter Ireland’s policy on military neutrality and the amendments proposed will do nothing to change Ireland’s traditional position of military neutrality, which is characterised by Ireland's non-participation in any military alliance. Our engagement overseas will continue to be firmly and exclusively grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and of international law.
I thank the Tánaiste for the details and his repeated clarity provided surrounding the proposed changes. Many people seem to remain unclear as to why the Government believes it necessary to move away from the existing triple lock. The cynic in me questions whether there is a co-ordinated campaign of misinformation in relation to this matter-----
Yes.
-----claiming it will compromise our neutrality. I wonder where that comes from.
There is, it comes from the Government-----
Deputy Murphy-----
Will the Deputy let me speak?
Deputy Murphy, allow the Deputy to speak.
The Deputy asked a question and I am answering it.
I think he meant it in a different way.
(Interruptions).
Many believe the triple lock has provided a clear reassurance to the Irish people that our participation overseas is grounded in neutrality and a UN mandate. However, in an ever-increasingly precarious and uncertain world, we should not find ourselves in a position where the likes of peacekeeping missions by Irish troops could be vetoed by UN member states.
There has been mention of Ukraine and in practical terms when a ceasefire and peace agreement is eventually reached there, hopefully sooner rather than later, we should not be at the mercy of countries that have built reputations on vetoes at the UN Security Council and essentially prevented deployment of Irish troops on such peacekeeping missions. Domestically, it is important that this legislation ensures that future overseas deployments continue to have broad political legitimacy and I ask for that reassurance today.
I support the triple lock and want it retained. The vast majority of us do not want Irish troops to serve anywhere unless it is as peacekeepers under the auspices of the UN. Opinion polls have consistently shown that. It was enacted to reassure the voters of the State that we would not become involved in an EU army, NATO or any other military alliances. The Government is now clearly determined to abandon the reassurances given to the people. Our military neutrality is already being undermined by the use of Shannon International Airport in my hometown as a U.S. military stopover point. That must stop. We want to see ethical investment in Shannon, not a continuation or increase in its use as a military airport. The Minister for Health also said that we have given away our decision making because we cannot trust ourselves. The fact is the Government had to reassure the people that there would be checks and balances on decision making because the people do not trust it. The Government does not want an independent foreign policy but the ability to sign us up to military alliances in which our decision making truly will be abandoned.
In answer to Deputy Clendennen's question, there is a cynical campaign of misinformation. It is coming from the Government. It is suggesting that we are going to get rid of the triple lock but there is no need to worry because we are going to stay within the framework of the UN Charter. That is not honest, unless the Tánaiste does not understand the UN Charter. There are two circumstances under the charter whereby a country can legally, under international law, send troops abroad: the first is self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, and the second is where it is authorised by the UN Security Council. That is literally what Article 53 states. When the Tánaiste said we are going to get rid of the triple lock but do not worry because we will stay in the UN Charter, it does not make any sense. For example, in the context of Ukraine, the Tánaiste said we will send troops to Ukraine but only in the context of a peacekeeping agreement. Is that a UN-endorsed peacekeeping agreement? In that case it would meet the requirements of the triple lock. However, if it is not, in which case presumably it is not a peacekeeping agreement when one of the warring parties, Russia, the invader, is clearly still at war, then we are sending troops to participate in a conflict. Is this why the Tánaiste in his answer regarding the heads of the Bill referred to maintaining the principles of the UN Charter?
I thank the Deputy.
That is not accidental because he is talking about the vague, broad principles in Article 2 of the UN Charter in contrast to giving a commitment to stay within the articles of the UN Charter, which are exactly the same as the triple lock.
To be clear on this Ukraine issue - I never wished to accuse the Deputy of this but there is an effort to be a bit mischievous here - there is no question whatsoever of Irish troops being deployed to a war or playing any role in anything other than peacekeeping. We live on the Continent of Europe and I believe we have an obligation to assist in peacekeeping on our Continent should that situation arise. It is beyond an abstract conversation at the moment because there is no indication at all that Putin wishes to see anything like peace as he continues to invade EU airspace in terms of the drones in Romania and Poland, and indeed continue to terrorise the civilian population. However, if we get to a moment where there is a peace agreement that requires peacekeepers, why would we not consider at that moment deploying our troops?
Why would we not? Because of vetos-----
It is possible in that scenario that the UN Security Council, because Russia is on it. The Deputy does not know that and I do not know that. However, it is also possible, in answer to Deputy Clendennen's question, that we could see a scenario more broadly - and I am not talking about Ukraine - where EU countries may wish to deploy peacekeepers, where the OSCE may wish to deploy peacekeepers or where there may be regional requests for peacekeeping missions that do not have the support of Russia, China or of the US for economic reasons or whatever else. I do not see what the difficulty with that is because-----
They are not-----
I accept the point the Deputy is making on the UN Charter's reference to the UN Security Council.
However, I think the principles of the UN Charter matter. I am happy to tease out that legislation. It may suit Members to try to divide us further on this issue but what we are trying to do is a modest proposal. We are trying to produce primary legislation that makes it clear we are only interested in deploying our troops for peacekeeping missions and the other maritime surveillance missions that we already know about. How do we do that in a way that works in a world where the UN Security Council is not functioning as we would wish it to function? That is the debate we are having. We are not having a debate about neutrality, NATO membership or sending our sons or daughters to war, or any of the hyperbole I have heard. If we can have a debate that is focused on what we are trying to achieve, we could, heaven forbid, do a good day's work in this place by productively taking forward an issue that supports the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann and ensures we can stay true to our values.
That phrase, "international law", is also important. We will only participate in anything in line with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. I fully agree with Deputy McGettigan that the Irish people value neutrality; so do I. However, I do not agree that the majority of people wish to see the retention of the triple lock. I have seen no evidence of that. Insofar as one can follow polling, a significant majority of people are open to changes to the triple lock. That is a matter for discussion.
We are already involved in training missions, for example, EUMAM, through which we are helping to train Ukrainians. We should also do that for the Lebanese armed forces. Why can we not work with our neighbours, friends and allies on peacekeeping missions without needing Vladimir Putin's permission?
I thank the Tánaiste. Irish troops have served with distinction at Camp Shamrock for several decades, none more than Deputy Callaghan who has just departed the Chamber. We have a proud and unbroken record of deployment of troops to Lebanon. We must protect that in the best interests of Óglaigh na hÉireann as our only full-scale peacekeeping mission in the world today.
We must reiterate the point that this debate is about the opportunity for the deployment of peacekeeping missions around the world and removing that element of UN authorisation will not be seen as a weakening of our international neutrality at a time when investment in military defences is increasingly important. I commend the Tánaiste's work in this area. It is important that he has given reassurance to the public that military offence is categorically not on the agenda. We must reassure the public that Ireland will never drift into overseas military operations that have some level of EU backing without them being in compliance with the UN Charter.
Sinn Féin supports investing in our military, air force and naval services to overcome the chronic neglect they have suffered under this and previous Governments. We are not a major military power and should not strive to become one. Our standing in the world should rest firmly on our neutrality and independence. We should seek to assert influence from that basis. Any military spending in excess of what is absolutely necessary will produce profits for arms manufacturers at the expense of the people of Ireland. We are suffering through a housing crisis and the last thing we can afford is the military adventurism of this Government. Sinn Féin in government would hold a referendum to enshrine our neutrality in the Constitution. Why has the Government not agreed to do the same? Clearly, it is because the Government knows that the people would vote against it. The Government knows it is in defiance of the will of the people. We will oppose any attempt to undermine the triple lock by this Government.
We are getting somewhere here. The Tánaiste accepted that the point of getting rid of the triple lock is to be able to send troops outside of the framework of the UN Charter - not just outside the principles but outside the articles of the UN Charter, which govern international law in respect of where troops can be sent abroad. That is the reason to get rid of the triple lock. The Tánaiste may say that we are only ever going to send troops on missions that are called peacekeeping missions. Does he know what Putin called his invasion of Ukraine? He said it was a peacekeeping mission. When the US led the invasion of Iraq, it was for humanitarian and democratic reasons. When the US invaded Afghanistan, it was the same. These days, no country ever says it is doing something for its own imperialist interests. Countries always dress it up as peacekeeping.
The top civil servant in the Tánaiste's Department admitted to me at a committee meeting that if it were not for the triple lock, Irish troops could have been sent to participate in the invasion of Iraq. The Tánaiste's political commitment that we will only send troops on peacekeeping missions is not worth anything under this Government. The Government will be gone at a certain point and we will have new governments. If we get rid of the triple lock, there will be no legal requirement that we will be within the framework of international law.
I will raise three points. I have made most of my primary arguments but I have three matters to clarify. I am not specifically addressing Deputy Clendennen, but there has been talk of misinformation. Some Government Deputies have tried to say that the issue of the triple lock has nothing to do with neutrality. The idea that the legislation that references how Irish troops are deployed outside the State as part of international forces has nothing to do with neutrality is quite a statement. It is a remarkable suggestion that it has nothing to do with neutrality.
My second point relates to where we send Irish troops on peacekeeping missions. It is important that we find other peacekeeping missions. It is important in terms of our standing internationally and the development of our Defence Forces. Irish troops currently participate in three of 11 peacekeeping missions. There are plenty of other peacekeeping missions to participate in.
The Tánaiste referenced the Fine Gael manifesto. Certainly the Fianna Fáil manifesto was silent. I had to go back and check whether there was reference to the triple lock or legislation of that kind in the Fine Gael manifesto. There was no such reference in the manifesto. I looked at it and there is no reference in the manifesto to removing the triple lock or legislation of any kind. The Tánaiste can look at it again if he has forgotten what was in it.
I thank the Deputy for reading the manifesto. We made it clear, and I recall making it clear, during the general election, but I appreciate the Deputy reading the manifesto. I closely read the Sinn Féin manifesto.
I have quite a few things to say. To Deputy Clendennen's point, we should acknowledge the men and women serving at Camp Shamrock. We all do so, and that is an important point. It has been a difficult period for them because of the region in which they have been serving. They have been dealing with the horrific murder of Private Seán Rooney. We continue to fight for justice and work with his mum, Natasha, in that regard. There has also been all the debate about whether there will be a renewal of the mandate and all the uncertainty of that. Throughout all of that, they have served with distinction. I know that point unites us.
The idea of Ireland becoming a major military power or engaging in military adventurism is at such a remove from the reality. We are spending so little on defence relative to other countries. We are trying to get to a level whereby we can protect our undersea cables and have a better idea of what goes on in our skies. Even when we get to LOA 2 or LOA 3, we are not spending like a military power or any country that wishes to be a military power. That is not what we wish to be at all. We wish to be a country that can keep itself and its people safe, has a better idea of what goes on in our sea and skies and plays a role in peacekeeping. That is what we want to do.
I always find it hard to agree with Deputy Murphy, but I agree that this Government will be gone at some point and there will be a new government. I take the point about how political commitments translate into primary legislation. It is a fair point. I ask the Deputy to bring forward proposals, as I am sure he will. Let us tease it through. We are going to change the triple lock. That is our proposal as a Government. We are going to bring forward proposals to this House. We have published a general scheme. It has been scrutinised by the Oireachtas committee. Some good ideas have come back from that cross-party committee, on which I am reflecting. There is an openness from me and the Government to further strengthen commitments around the UN Charter. I ask the Deputy to bring forward proposals in that regard. If the Opposition's approach is to say, "No, nay, never, we will not talk to you about it and will just vote you down", that is grand, but it is not the most constructive way to try to engage in the legislation that we have a duty to try to get right.
What is going on in Gaza is a genocide. We agree on that point. We were one of the first countries, certainly in Europe, to call it a genocide. The UN independent inquiry now agrees. I often hear from people who support the triple lock that they want Ireland to be able to assist more in Gaza. I have even heard people ask if our military or Air Corps could become involved. None of that can happen under the triple lock. We must try to look at the situation. Do Deputies believe there will be, whether through unanimity or not, a veto in respect of Gaza and the two-state solution at the UN Security Council? I do not believe that.
What about Ukraine and peacekeeping? There are real issues here that are going to come to the fore in the time ahead. We must have legislation whereby Ireland remains militarily neutral and unaligned, but which also provides some degree of flexibility in the countries and parts of the world to which we deploy peacekeepers to reflect and advance our values.
Departmental Strategies
8. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to provide an update on the development of a national strategy for the resilience of critical entities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48912/25]
My question concerns an issue with which the Tánaiste will be familiar with, that is, the urgent need to build resilience in our national systems in line with EU regulations. I am asking for an update on the development of a national strategy for the resilience of critical entities.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. The critical entities resilience, CER, directive is part of the European Union-wide effort to increase the resilience of essential services that provide vital societal functions in all member states of the European Union. My Department has transposed this directive by way of the resilience of critical entities regulations 2024. I am pleased that Ireland was among the first member states to transpose directive on time.
The regulations apply to 11 essential services in different sectors of the economy, ranging from the energy and transport sectors through to large-scale food production, processing and distribution. Essentially the purpose of the regulations is to create a framework to ensure that critical entities are able to prevent, resist, absorb and recover from disruptive incidents, whether they are caused by natural hazards, accidents, terrorism, insider threats or public health emergencies.
My Department conducted an extensive engagement programme with relevant policy Departments, bilaterally and through the Government task force on emergency planning since 2021. This was done for negotiations on the directive and also the subsequent transposition of the directive into Irish law. Since the transposition last year, engagement has continued in order to develop our resilience of critical entities strategy. This is a key element of the new regulatory framework. The strategy will lay out the framework for the identification of critical entities in the essential service sectors in the State, and the specific obligations and resilience-enhancement measures required from each of the critical entities. The strategy will also outline a mechanism for information-sharing and developing a collaborative public and private approach to the resilience of the essential services.
My Department is currently in consultation with all competent authorities and relevant Departments and agencies for each sector to develop a strategy for the resilience of critical entities, which is to be published in 2026 in line with requirements of the directive. Step 1 was to negotiate the directive and step 2 was to transpose it. We were one of the first countries in Europe to do that. Under step 3, under the transposition, you need to produce a strategy, by 2026. I am pleased to say we are on track to do that.
It is good to hear that Ireland is leading out when it comes to the transposition of the regulations. Disruptive incidents, whether caused by national hazards or malicious actors, have the potential to inflict immense damage on Ireland. We saw what happened with Storm Éowyn and the damage it did to communities across Ireland, but we also saw the real value of EU solidarity. The EU civil protection mechanism kicked in, with 13 power generators from the Commission’s reserve and four generators from Denmark, to help to provide electricity on the ground. Then Copernicus was activated, supplying analytical support to our national authorities. Of course, there was also good co-operation between the energy companies internationally, providing boots on the ground in the form of crews. This sort of co-operation is a core strength of the European Union. Sharing information, conducting joint risk assessments and participating in advisory missions will be central to safeguarding critical infrastructure in Europe.
The Tánaiste might just comment in a little more detail on steps 2 and 3 in terms of the transposition.
I thank Deputy Ó Muirí. I agree with everything he said. To state the obvious, it is true that we are all living in a world that is becoming so much more interdependent. That is why it is right that Europe lead on this in demanding that all member states put in place plans but also learn from each other in relation to this.
To expand a little more, the strategy will set out our national approach, our strategic objectives and the priorities for the improvement of our resilience across each of the critical entities. I am very proud of how our country endeavours to respond when something goes wrong, but I am also very conscious that we need to do better and, each time, build up a greater level of resilience, preparedness, planning and co-ordination regarding future events. The strategy will outline where the strategic objectives are, but it will also outline very clearly, in respect of each sector that is a critical entity, what the priority projects for improvements are. The strategy will be issued under the auspices of the Government task force on emergency planning, which I chair, and will meet the requirements of the regulation.
This strategy will build on our established national risk-assessment methodology to meet the requirements of the regulation, including identifying our essential services and establishing a governance framework. I am out of time but I can send the Deputy more information.
I thank the Tánaiste. The programme for Government was mentioned earlier. It rightly highlights the need to strengthen national security to protect Irish citizens, maintain public order and ensure the safety of communities in Ireland. We all hear about and are aware of reports of foreign actors probing underseas communications, energy infrastructure and other installations. While we hope our preparations are never tested, we cannot afford to be caught on the back foot when it comes to the national security of critical facilities and infrastructure like that in question. This is why the State-led strategic gas reserve, for example, is so important. That must also be dealt with on a secure basis and put on a secure footing. Ireland cannot allow itself to be in a position where large parts of the country are left without energy for weeks on end because of either an incident or, more worrying, malicious acts of other entities. Failing to deliver the floating storage unit is a risk that is neither acceptable nor appropriate for the Government to take. We must follow through on commitments outlined in the programme for Government, building the capacity to respond swiftly and effectively to emerging threats to our daily lives in co-operation with our European partners. It is an essential investment in the future safety and security of generations.
I agree with that 100%. I fully support swift progress on the programme for Government commitments on this. For far too long, politics here has been prisoner to ideology rather than the obligations we have as a Government and Oireachtas to make sure key services, including the provision of energy, an absolutely vital component, can continue in a whole variety of situations. I assure the House that while we obviously do not discuss these matters in detail, a lot of work goes on in the background on responding to various threats and challenges that our country, or indeed any country, could encounter in relation to contingency planning. One of the decisions this new Government took was the establishment of a national security council, which co-ordinates at a senior level of government – with me, the Taoiseach and one or two other Ministers in key positions, along with the Chief of Staff, the Garda Commissioner and others – on the various issues in relation to our national security.
This will be an important step. We have been publishing our national risk assessment for quite a number of years. This takes it to the next level, outlining the specific actions each of our critical entity sectors will take.
Defence Forces
9. Deputy Shay Brennan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will report on plans for a properly resourced office of veterans' affairs. [48992/25]
The contribution of our Defence Forces, both at home and abroad, is undoubtedly a source of incredible pride for us as Irish people. Could the Tánaiste please outline the plans to further support our veterans of the Defence Forces? I notice that in the programme for Government, there are plans to establish a properly resourced office for veteran affairs.
I thank Deputy Keogh for raising this issue. This is an area I want us to do so much better on. There is already good work done in relation to veterans. I am very pleased that my Department provides funding to a number of veteran associations. I have met and visited them. How we support, acknowledge and recognise the role of men and women who served in Óglaigh na hÉireann, at home and abroad, is really important. I fully agree with Deputy Keogh on this.
There is a firm commitment in the programme for Government to establish a dedicated office for veteran affairs, and I have instructed my Department to expedite the establishment of this office. I see an office of veteran affairs as playing a really important role in becoming, effectively, a one-stop shop where our veterans can seek support, co-ordination and information regarding a range of supports. I see a cross-government element to how this works. I refer to an office of veteran affairs that can advocate within the system, across Departments and agencies, on various issues relating to veterans, including health, social protection and housing.
I am very conscious that we can learn from other countries on this. I am pleased to say that, in the first instance, we are going to set up a dedicated office for veteran affairs. I want to get that up and running very quickly. It will have to evolve and grow, but it is important that it be established. I will very much work with Deputy Keogh and other Deputies on this.
I recognise the outstanding contribution made to the State by our ex-service personnel. In this regard, the Defence Forces will be hosting Veterans Day in McKee Barracks on 29 September. I recently visited the Organisation of National Ex-Service Personnel, ONE, in Brú na bhFiann in Smithfield and I was very impressed with its facilities and the work it does there.
In addition to the payment of over €300 million on pensions to over 13,000 ex-service personnel and their dependants, my Department provides support to two recognised veteran associations. These associations, which represent all former personnel, are the Irish United Nations Veterans Association and ONE.
My officials and I regularly meet these recognised veterans associations, as well as the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers and the Retired Enlisted Members Association, to discuss matters of concern to their members. My Department now has service level agreements with IUNVA and ONE, under which an annual grant is paid to both organisations in order to assist with their administrative overheads. I am pleased these grants increased substantially in 2022, and they have also been increased again this year. As a further means of assistance, since 2021 my Department has been securing dormant accounts funding to assist both organisations with specific projects.
The 2025 programme for Government commits to establishing a dedicated office of veterans affairs. It will be based in my Department. I intend to see this office established as a matter of priority.
I thank the Tánaiste. Could I take ten seconds of my one minute to thank his Department and our ambassadors for the work they did on getting Gena Heraty and other hostages released from Haiti? It is much appreciated.
I acknowledge the tremendous work done by the organisations the Tánaiste mentioned, including ONE, the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers and the Irish United Nations Veterans Association. It is great to hear there is cross-government work to get the veteran affairs office established but we need clear timelines because our veterans have worked in really challenging circumstances.
They come home and transition into work life with patchy mental health supports. We know there is an increased risk of homelessness. I also think of Private Billy Kedian, whose family waited over two decades for him to be posthumously awarded the distinguished service medal with honour. We need a robust support for our veterans.
I thank the Deputy for mentioning Gena Heraty. It gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to her. I had the honour of speaking to her on the phone a while back. She is the closest thing I have ever encountered to a living saint. In Westport, County Mayo, and right across Ireland, there is great relief that Gena has been released from captivity. I thank her for the incredible work she does. I think of her family, who went through such a torrid time, but I am really glad Gena is doing well. I send her my very best.
The office of veterans' affairs is an important recommendation. It was included in the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. We put it in our programme for Government. I have made it a priority that we get it up and running. We are consulting with the veteran associations to get it established as quickly as possible. I want to see it established in some form this year. We need to consider its role, responsibility and the required resources, but we should get it up and running, even if we get it up and running and then have to grow it in the time ahead. To date, consultation meetings have been held with ONE and the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers, ARCO. We are scheduling meetings with the other two representative associations I mentioned.
The Deputy mentioned the specific issue of mental health supports to veterans. This is an important point. As with other members of society, former members of the Permanent Defence Force can, of course, experience difficulties. They can often find themselves in unique circumstances relative to the rest of our population. In such circumstances, there is access to supports, including through ONE, an organisation we fund. It has services, including critical incident stress management services. There is a 24-hour confidential counselling, referral and support helpline and primary medical care from a dedicated team of Defence Forces medical officers and contracted civilian GPs, but there is much more we need to do in this area.
Other countries have done a lot in this space. Many countries have a dedicated minister of state for veteran affairs. That is a natural progression we should see over time, with a greater focus on the work done by the men and women who have served on peacekeeping missions. The establishment of this office is an important step. It is a priority. I expect good progress on it this year and to build on it in 2026.
I acknowledge the good work that is being done, but there are some veterans who are still falling between the cracks in relation to waiting lists for mental health services and the risks of homelessness. I think of the potential end of the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon. When our troops return home, they are transitioning from a highly structured environment with a very close community, to other work and back into their families. We have to step up to the plate to ensure we are giving them adequate mental health supports and adequate financial supports. The Tánaiste mentioned the €300 million pot for pensions, but there needs to be that co-ordinated, efficient, robust support so we ensure none of our veterans fall between the cracks and we reward them for the service they have given to the country.
I fully agree. You are entirely right. If I felt everything was perfect, I would not passionately believe we need to establish the office of veteran affairs. The Deputy is entirely right. There is a need for a greater sustained focus and co-ordination on the range of issues veterans can experience in the here and now, as the Deputy said, immediately after leaving the Defence Forces and returning from a mission, but also years down the road. We have a duty to them after their service to our country.
On the issue of housing, I was very impressed by the work being done by the organisation ONE, when I visited it in Smithfield, where housing options are provided for people who have served as veterans and who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It has very exciting plans to further expand the number of locations across the country, which my Department and other Departments are endeavouring to try to assist them with now.
This is an area where we are in a better place as a country in our awareness of veterans and the supports that are there than we were a number of years ago. There is still a journey to go. If we can establish an office of veterans' affairs, that will in and of itself mean a lot to people because it is recognition. It will be a very public statement of recognition for anybody who has served that we see them, hear them, want to work with them, have their back, want to better co-ordinate how we support them and thank them for their service. That is why it is a priority to establish this. I will certainly keep in close contact with the Deputy on it.
Middle East
10. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the engagements there have been with the Lebanese authorities following the re-examination of the case against individuals charged in Lebanon in relation to the death of a person (details supplied); the status of the other investigations carried out into the death; when these reports will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48885/25]
Obviously, we remember the sacrifice of Seán Rooney. We also remember the case where Joshua Phelan, Nathan Bryan and Shane Kearney were injured. We are all absolutely shocked by Mohammad Ayyad not being there in court and by the pitiful sentences. These are being re-examined and there is a promise, to some degree, of more action. What have the Tánaiste's engagements been with the Lebanese authorities? Is there any news about where Mohammad Ayyad is? Is there any follow-up on where those cases are?
I thank the Deputy, who rightly raises this issue with me regularly. It is important we continue to keep the focus and pressure in terms of justice on these matters.
Since the events of 14 December 2022, in which Private Seán Rooney was killed, and Trooper Shane Kearney and other personnel from the 121st Battalion were injured, the Government has consistently expressed determination that all of the facts and circumstances of the incident be fully established and that no stone be left unturned to ensure those responsible are brought to justice. Both I and my officials have consistently raised this matter with the Lebanese authorities on a regular basis. I assure the Deputy and the House we will continue to do so. I can also confirm there has been sustained and constructive engagement with the UN Secretariat on this matter over the past two and a half years through Ireland’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York.
The last hearing of the trial was held on 28 July. My officials, members of the Defence Forces, Ireland’s ambassador and our honorary consul to Lebanon, and the Department’s Lebanese lawyer all attended the hearing along with a member of Private Rooney's family. The hearing saw the conclusion of the court proceedings, with one defendant convicted of murder and the attempted killing of other Irish personnel. A variety of lighter custodial sentences and fines were imposed on others involved in the incident, including the full acquittal of one defendant.
Following this hearing, the Deputy will be aware that both I and the Taoiseach expressed our extreme disappointment at the lenient sentences imposed on a number of the defendants. In seeking to express the Government's disappointment with the sentences handed down, and while being fully mindful of the independence of the Lebanese judicial system, I wrote to the Lebanese Government, including the ministers for defence, justice and foreign affairs, following the hearing. In my letters, I expressed the disappointment of the Government of Ireland at the leniency of the sentences handed down to the defendants in the case and urged the Lebanese authorities to do everything in their power to apprehend the main defendant so he can serve his sentence.
I have since followed up with phone calls to the Lebanese ministers for defence and justice, after which the Lebanese Minister of Justice confirmed to me that an appeal on the sentencing had been lodged to the military court. Just this week, I issued further correspondence to the Lebanese authorities seeking details on the appeals process. I will remain fully engaged in the progress of the appeals process and will ensure that family members continue to be updated.
Regarding the coroner’s inquest into the death of Private Rooney, further hearings will take place in the coming months. Both my Department and the Defence Forces are co-operating with this process in full.
It is absolutely necessary that the Tánaiste maintain communication with the family and the pressure be maintained, not only on the Lebanese authorities but also on the UN. Is the Tánaiste reasonably happy that there is a free flow of information at this point from the UN? There were promises that information would be provided to the family, but I am not sure that all has been done. We need to ensure that happens. Is there any further news regarding Mohammad Ayyad, who was not there in court? This obviously leads to major worries.
We should maintain whatever pressure we can because Private Rooney made the ultimate sacrifice. We know the issues there are in relation to that UNIFIL mission. It is absolutely right that we stand by him and his memory, but also that the UN does justice.
I should have also said that an independent inquiry is being undertaken by Mr. Michael Delaney SC, which is ongoing. This review is examining the internal tactics, techniques, processes and procedures employed by the Defence Forces with a view to determining whether there are any lessons to be learned from the circumstances surrounding Private Rooney’s death. Mr. Delaney is expected to present a report to me in quarter 4 of this year.
I have raised the apprehension of the person convicted specifically with the justice minister of Lebanon. I told him how vital it is not only that justice be served in court, but that there is no point giving out a big sentence if the person has still not been apprehended. He assured me that this remains a priority for the justice forces and the Lebanese Government. I will continue to monitor that.
My Department is in very close contact with the UN Secretariat but more importantly, we are keeping in very close contact with Private Rooney's family, particularly Natasha, his mum. I will continue to ensure she is kept fully up to date. I will attend the UN General Assembly in the coming days, where I hope I may have an opportunity to further discuss this issue.
Many of us became worried about some of stories in the public domain, including that Mohammad Ayyad was not even in Lebanon, so there is a necessity for pressure to be put on the Lebanese regime. Is the Tánaiste reasonably happy that the UN is providing that information? I assume that the Government will maintain pressure to ensure this happens, particularly with regard to information for the family.
Regarding the Army pensions case involving John McNeela, whose son Michael made the ultimate sacrifice in Lebanon while peacekeeping, we all know that the allowance paid to John's wife when she died was not transferred to him. The Tánaiste promised to update the legislation. Is there a possibility of finding an administrative solution? Could we have a timeline on that? It is right that we do right by the memory and families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in peacekeeping.
I am aware that the UN is providing information but my satisfaction will depend on whether the family are satisfied, so I want to keep in close contact with them. I had the honour of meeting John McNeela at the national day of commemoration. When I met him, I credited the Deputy regarding his advocacy of the family's situation. We are committed to rectifying this in primary legislation and I spoke to my Secretary General in recent days about this. It will need to be changed through primary legislation. I am not sure there is an administrative solution but I have asked for the quickest Bill into which to insert this amendment. If it can be a vehicle other than a defence Bill, I am open to that. We are engaging with the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Social Protection. I will try to come back to the Deputy with a timeline in the next couple of weeks as to how we can move this forward. It does not necessarily have to wait for defence legislation. Other legislation could move more quickly.
And whether it can be retrospective.
Let me check that with the Attorney General as well.
Questions Nos. 11 and 12 taken with Question No. 7.
Defence Forces
13. Deputy Noel McCarthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the amount of funding allocated for the development of Defence Forces infrastructure in each of the past five years, the number of projects completed in that period, the number under way and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49093/25]
I thank the Deputy for his question and for the opportunity to discuss the considerable investment made by my Department in the Defence Forces over the past five years. This is much-needed investment when we have to do more in terms of our national security and defence. The Defence Forces infrastructure development plan, IDP, sets out a programme of project delivery for the years 2023 to 2027. The programme reflects the complex environment in which the Defence Forces operate and the need for appropriate infrastructure to provide accommodation and training of personnel as well as the maintenance and storage of equipment.
There has been a consistent commitment to capital works development and the improvement of military installations and barracks across the country. The amount of funding given towards such developments has increased significantly year on year. For example, €37 million was allocated in 2021. This has risen this year to €62.5 million. I hope this level of investment demonstrates our continued commitment to ensuring the development of our military infrastructure.
I am pleased to say that over the past five years, 43 capital infrastructure projects were completed across Defence Forces installations and barracks. Some of the most notable projects include the upgrade and refurbishment of blocks within the historic McKee Barracks, the new training and accommodation facility at Renmore, the Cadet School at the Defence Forces Training Centre in the Curragh Camp and the upgrade of block 4 accommodation at Haulbowline. All the completed projects represent a significant step towards enhancing the experiences of our Defence Forces personnel by providing them with a high-quality, modern living and working environment.
This year alone, 13 projects are under way at construction stage, many of which are due to finish in the next 12 months, with a combined value of €60 million. Most notable are the new military medical facility at Casement Aerodrome, the new gym and obstacle course along with the locker block at the Joint Induction Training Centre at Gormanston campus, and the refurbishment of block 1 accommodation in Collins Barracks. I am very pleased to say that the significant extra capital investment we have received in the national development plan will enable us to spend a lot more on capital. This is a very significant rise, at about €600 million for Defence Force capital over the next five years compared with the previous five.
I acknowledge the important work of Defence Forces personnel. I have seen it at first hand with family members directly involved. I firmly believe that Defence Forces infrastructure and equipment must be of a modern standard to meet their operational capabilities and defence responsibilities. I therefore welcome the revised national development plan allocation to upgrade and modernise Defence Forces infrastructure and the fact that planning is being undertaken. I believe a modern progressive Defence Forces with associated equipment and infrastructure would further encourage those who are interested in pursuing a career in the Defence Forces to enlist. I acknowledge that some of these projects are complex and require long lead-in times but I ask the Tánaiste to keep these developments at the forefront of his thinking and that of his Department.
I acknowledge the Deputy's family's proud tradition of service in our Defence Forces. I know that he will very much agree that investing in our defence infrastructure is not just about investment in buildings or vehicles. It is actually an investment in our people, in keeping them safe, providing them with the best equipment and ensuring they are trained to the highest possible standard. It is about ensuring our soldiers, sailors and air crew can carry out their duties in a safe and secure environment. I am really pleased to inform the Deputy that we have a number of really significant capital projects at various stages of the procurement pipeline, including the significant investment we will make in sonar and radar capabilities, which I believe will be transformational.
I know the Deputy may be particularly interested in some of the projects in his own county of Cork, so let me take the opportunity to highlight two of them. They involve the upgrade of two buildings, namely, block 4 accommodation and block 9 office accommodation at the naval base in Haulbowline. One involves €7.8 million, while the other involves €17.4 million. I am also pleased to say that we have seen a refurbishment of block 1 accommodation in Collins Barracks at an investment of €4.9 million. Millions are being invested in the defence facilities in Cork.
I thank the Minister for his very positive response. I welcome the news about Haulbowline and Collins Barracks. It is very positive news. Could the Tánaiste give me an update on the Department's development of a national maritime security strategy? Approval has also been given for Defence Forces participating in the EU's common information sharing environment. Could the Tánaiste provide further insight into what information is being shared as part of this agreement?
These are very significant developments that have taken place. Regarding the need to develop a national maritime security strategy, the waters over which we have exclusive economic authority are about seven times larger than the land mass of this country, so we have to have a better understanding and better security structures in place regarding that. This is why we are leading on the national maritime security strategy. We ran a public consultation over the summer and received about 300 responses. I expect to receive the national maritime security strategy by the end of the year. That is another key step in terms of the security of our country.
Regarding the common information sharing exchange, the Deputy is correct in saying that I took the decision for the Defence Forces to opt in to this. This basically a sharing system for when we become aware of something in our waters. A lot of this would have happened on an ad hoc basis in the past as good relations are already in place, but we need to better co-ordinate information when we see something in our seas that can move into somebody else's seas. We are seeing more and more of this happening. We are seeing more and more bad actors in this space. This system provides us with an exchange to co-ordinate that information sharing and is working well.
Question No. 14 replied to with Written Answers.
15. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the number of residential Defence Forces buildings that are currently not habitable, and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49304/25]
Our Defence Forces camps have a large number of residential buildings, many of which are either not in use or uninhabitable. About 85% of the buildings in Cork are uninhabitable, while the number across the State is 153, with 71 buildings unoccupied and 79 uninhabitable. I appreciate that the circumstances are a bit different from those when they were first built, but there is still scope for more residential capacity and there is a question about whether they can be brought back into use for residential or other uses.
There are currently 80 uninhabitable residential Defence Forces buildings. None of these uninhabitable properties can be brought up to a habitable standard without significant work. Many of them were built prior to the introduction of building regulations, for example. As such, considerable work will be needed to bring them up to modern standards. Consultants were commissioned to assess the condition of the Defence Forces vacant housing stock and its suitability for conversion or refurbishment to provide for additional single living-in accommodation for Defence Forces personnel. My officials are subsequently engaged with the Defence Forces to have these projects included in the existing infrastructure development plan and have discussed the prioritisation of same.
It is intended to begin the procurement phase for this project in 2026. These developments will dovetail with an extensive wider programme of Defence Forces accommodation procurement, especially investment in accommodation for serving personnel. I advise the Deputy that since the launch of the infrastructure development plan in January 2020 a lot of accommodation projects have been completed. I think it is €49.7 million worth of projects for the accommodation space providing 775 beds.
Some of what exists on the various campuses dates from a different time in the context of what is expected in terms of accommodation, but also with respect to family arrangements and so on. It is nonetheless the case there is a housing crisis so it is easy to understand why people feel frustrated. We have members of the Defence Forces who are struggling to find accommodation, especially when they are based near urban centres. Certainly in Cork it can be difficult for people, particularly if they are recent enough recruits and maybe on the lower end of the pay scale, to find accommodation near Collins Barracks, Haulbowline or Lynch Camp in Fermoy. Right across the State it is frustrating to see places that are described as residential buildings in this condition. As I said, in Cork 84% of them are uninhabitable. Across the board it is similar enough, with 80 being uninhabitable of 153, which is a little over half.
The Minister has outlined a plan of operation. Has he a sense, maybe, of the timeline? Is it his view it is desirable for some of these buildings to come back into use as accommodation for people to live in? What is his sense of it?
The Deputy is not wrong, but it is a balance to do with what is a sensible investment. Are we better off spending money on new accommodation projects and getting on with that and driving forward on that? We see the 775 beds that have been completed since 2020. Nearly €50 million was spent on that. There are 12 other accommodation projects under way, providing in excess of 500 additional beds. That is 775 plus 500. We need to make a call, and we will in 2026 with this procurement plan, about what might be salvageable with the level of investment. Obviously if there is anything that can be done then we will do that but we are only going to put our Defence Forces personnel into accommodation that would meet what the Deputy and I would consider to be of the reasonable and decent standard they are entitled to. I am very much committed to overhauling both the built environment and the working conditions for the men and women of the Defence Forces. I hope this significant increase in investment outlines that commitment. We will have to make a call in 2026 about the uninhabitable accommodation and what can and cannot be made habitable. I see that as part of our overall accommodation plan for the Defence Forces.
Related to a previous question, one of the considerations should be former Defence Forces personnel who, for various reasons, have low incomes and find it difficult to find accommodation. Obviously it should have the same standards the Minister has in mind. That should also be a consideration when we are looking at residential blocks.
I am aware there will be a detailed assessment of this, but are the issues primarily with layout and modern building regulations or are there many of these buildings where the problem is the actual fabric and the question is whether the building is salvageable, for residential use or otherwise?
I would have to get the Deputy a detailed building-by-building breakdown, but my understanding is the ones assessed to be uninhabitable are deemed so because there is a very significant requirement of work to bring them into any sort of line with modern building regulations, rather than it being more preferential to have something laid out in a different way. I am happy to get the Deputy more information on it but we have commissioned consultants to assess the condition of the housing stock and identify what might be suitable for conversion or refurbishment versus what does not make sense to work on from a value-for-money point of view.
The Deputy's point about those who previously served is a good one. He will be familiar with the work of ONE. I think it has housing facilities in his county. It is eager to do more and I think to do more in Cork. I am happy to work with the Deputy on that. I am very impressed on the return on investment, to be blunt. I do not mean that in terms of money but the success ONE has in people transitioning from its accommodation into housing and into a stable life, quite frankly, after some very difficult circumstances. There is definitely room to do more work with that organisation and we are in active discussion with it on that.
Environmental Schemes
87. Deputy Catherine Callaghan asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment his plans for an expansion of the funding of the circular economy innovation grant scheme in 2025. [49232/25]
I am pleased to confirm that the 2025 funding round for the circular economy innovation grant scheme, CEIGS, was launched on 10 September. This scheme is a key driver of Ireland's transition to a circular economy supporting innovative projects led by social enterprises, voluntary and community organisations and small businesses. Since its launch in April 2021, we have awarded €1.8 million to 36 projects while tackling priority areas, such as food waste, plastics, single-use packaging, construction, textiles and general waste.
These projects are delivering real impact from BladeBridge repurposing wind turbines blades into public infrastructure to Happy Earth developing a compostable alternative to medical plastics. From 2025, the scheme will again be administered in partnership with Community Foundation Ireland with €650,000 in total funding available. Individual grants will range from €40,000 to €50,000 enabling a broad range of organisations to scale their ideas and deliver measurable circular outcomes. Projects under this round are expected to focus on plastics, construction circularity, food waste prevention and critical raw material recovery. These are all aligned to Ireland's circular economy strategy and our climate action plan. This scheme is not just about funding; it is also about accelerating innovation, empowering communities and shining a spotlight on many of these scalable solutions so they can be replicated nationwide.
I thank the Minister of State. I welcome the funding that has been spent in this important area. In the most recent round of funding, small commercial start-ups and SMEs dominated the list of companies that had been awarded funding with only two, The Rediscovery Centre and We Make Good, accurately described as community enterprises. While these commercial start-up contributions to the industrial transition to circularity are welcome, and indeed, go a long way to making the changes in mindset that the Minister of State has outlined his answer, there are non-profit social enterprises, such as ones I have visited in County Carlow,: the Be Kind Project, supported by Carlow County Development Partnership and the proposed midlands food retribution hub, which is a joint collaboration between Kilkenny LEADER Partnership and the Clean Technology Centre. They are just two local community enterprises in my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny that could benefit not only from the CEIGS, but could also spread awareness of the circularity principles in their communities. While funding remains at a constant level, it is hard for these types of firms to make their case against commercial start-ups with large economic potential. Is consideration being given to expanding the grants going forward?
I am in full agreement that we need to continue to scale-up the scheme to sustain the investment by many SMEs and community organisations. That is why at the end of this year we will have allocated over €2.4 million. We need to continue on that trajectory of supporting many of these pioneering projects. I had the opportunity to visit the Irish Manufacturing Research facility in Mullingar to see the work of Circuléire. I have also been to the Rediscovery Centre. Tremendous work is being done, but the question is how we bring that to the next level. That is important because without funding and support, it is difficult. We want to deliver more ambition under this scheme. We look forward to many applicants putting forward their ideas. We have seen over 36 projects being supported last year. I hope we can ensure through a communications campaign that many areas across the country, including the Deputy's constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, can be supported. I welcome any discussions on any projects brought to my attention.
That is music to my ears. I am glad to hear that. I wish to follow up on the Minister of State's point. There has been a large degree of support from the local authorities in Carlow and Kilkenny and they have been proactive with circular economy initiatives. For example, Carlow County Council recently completed a survey of businesses in the county to assess attitudes towards the circular economy and to inform future policy with regards to circularity in the county. Kilkenny County Council adopted a waste action plan from 2024 to 2030 showcasing the centrality of waste management and the circular economy initiatives within its area. That showcases a desire to promote the circular economy locally. As the Minister of State outlined, greater funding opportunities for community enterprises will absolutely align with the goals. However, to date, no organisation with a base in Carlow or Kilkenny has received any funding under the terms of the scheme. On their behalf, I commend the Minister of State on his work to date in the most important area and to encourage him to please continue to be as ambitious as he is in this regard to expand CEIGS funding further.
I thank the Deputy for her interest in this area. It needs to be a bottom-up, top-down led approach. We are looking to publish the draft of the circular economy strategy. A key area of focus will be targeted actions. Local authorities can play a huge part within the local government system. However, we need a stronger uptake around innovation in these areas. We will have a public consultation. We will welcome feedback from businesses, SMEs and many of the social enterprise organisations on what they would like to see this scheme comprising of. We are focusing on textiles, construction and packaging as being key principles in this scheme in terms of areas of priority. We have a journey to go on this. I look forward to building more initiatives within the circular economy in many areas across business and local authorities.
88. Deputy John Clendennen asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment the status of the operation of the home energy upgrade loan scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48877/25]
The home energy upgrade loan scheme, HEULS, was launched in April 2024. It is intended to play a crucial role in helping homeowners invest in their energy upgrades to make their homes warmer, healthier and more comfortable with lower emissions and lower bills. It was developed by my Department in conjunction with the Department of Finance, Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, and European Investment Bank.
The scheme is available nationwide and homeowners can borrow from €5,000 to €75,000 on an unsecured basis for a term of up to ten years at significantly lower interest rates than those currently on the market. Rates start from as low as 2.99% depending on the finance provider. PTSB was the first lender to join in April 2024. AIB and Bank of Ireland joined in June 2024. In 2025, the group of participating lenders has been expanded to include Avant Money in partnership with An Post and seven credit unions from the Irish League of Credit Unions. By the end of 2024, 245 loans to a value of €11.9 million were drawn down, and by the end of June 2025 this had risen to 580 loans to a value of €28.5 million.
In line with the programme for Government, in addition to expanding the number of lenders under the scheme, a key focus of the Department across 2025 has been the continued promotion of the scheme to drive uptake.
This also includes the progression of a comprehensive marketing and communications campaign to scale up activity in the home energy upgrade loan scheme. While I am aware, and it can be seen from the numbers, that it probably did not drive on as quickly as people expected, now that there are the array of lenders and with that campaign being organised I expect there to be a significant uptake. The 3% interest rate in the current market is a very good rate and one we all have a duty insofar as we can to try to promote within our own spheres of influence.
I thank the Minister of State and welcome the progress made. I agree with him on the sentiments around interest rates and the take-up. The demand for retrofitting is definitely rising but we need to monitor the correlation of draw-downs versus retrofit. There is a body of work to be done here where there is essentially cash investment in retrofitting. It is welcome but I am not so sure the broader consumer understands the need to invest. We have many debates in this House about the need for energy credits and so on but we would be better served if we invested in this area for the longer term. The only way to bring down energy bills is by investing in renewables and that is the way forward.
In my own county there are situations where central heating by peat fuel is up to 40% compared to a national average of 4%. Whether it is turf fuel or oil boilers the gap between those and heat pumps is significant and there is a body of work to be done to bridge that gap.
I thank the Deputy for pointing that out. That has been a feature. As we go to the air to water systems the costs are significant but the long-term rewards are real. When homes are brought up to a higher energy rating and appropriately insulated, there is a significant financial reward over time. When that is coupled with the use of solar panels, that reduces consumption in the first instance, thereby reducing bills. At the end of the day, society is changing a lot in being mindful of our CO2 emissions but until it is made financially feasible and viable people will not be minded to take the next step, which is to invest their own money in protecting the environment more generally. People are willing and better educated about the benefits for the wider aspect of society but I fully agree with the Deputy that we have to make this financially viable and demonstrate there is a financial return through reduced costs over time. Of course, upgrading somebody's home is improving an asset and preserving and protecting it into the future. I thank the Deputy for his interest.
For anyone to make a decision on a loan, he or she will consider three key, fundamental points. These are the interest rate, affordability and the loan term. That really determines whether it is feasible or viable. There is one particular cohort, which is our elderly, where the term of the loan may not make sense for them. There is a body of work to do on energy poverty and climate action. I would like to see HVO and wood pellets recognised as an intermediate measure. I mentioned the gap between peat fuel and heat pumps and I believe the likes of HVO and wood pellets should be recognised. There is also an immediate, easy fix, with no disruption to elderly people, through solar panels. We should consider a national scheme where there is free insulation, supported by an SEAI grant, with microgeneration actually funding the installers to the stage where it is paid for. The homeowner will get immediate benefit and will get the transfer of ownership once the full payment has been made. That is a measure we need to introduce for our elderly because right now, it is simply neither feasible or viable to invest in retrofitting.
A scheme has been deployed for those most under threat of energy poverty where the entirety of the cost is recovered. That is clearly for those in low income homes, whether they be elderly or significantly dependent on social supports. The Deputy should not hold me to this but I think 25,000 homes have been upgraded in that particular sphere. That is an area that can be looked at.
This will require further review but any investment in a home to reduce CO2 output, rather than going for the full retrofit, would be beneficial and helpful to the environment so it may be possible to look at some staging measures. I accept there are people for whom a ten-year cycle would be significant and would probably preclude them in terms of their own thinking. I am happy to take those issues on board and see what we can do in the future to devise a diverse range of schemes.
Question No. 89 taken with Written Answers.
Recycling Policy
90. Deputy Paul Lawless asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment his views on whether the deposit return scheme has been a success to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49284/25]
Has the DRS been a success? I am not just asking about the environmental aspect but about the financials behind company, the percentage of unclaimed deposits and where that money has gone and the impact will the scheme have on families right across Ireland who may well experience higher bin collection fees as a result of the DRS.
The deposit return scheme was introduced in February 2024 to help Ireland to meet ambitious EU recycling targets and to encourage more sustainable consumer behaviour. I am pleased to report the scheme has made a strong start and is delivering on its core objectives. Re-turn, the not-for-profit operator, has seen the registration of 287 producers covering over 11,000 products and the installation of 2,750 reverse vending machines nationwide. These machines are now a familiar and effective part of recycling infrastructure, with financial support provided to small retailers to ensure widespread access.
The scheme is having a very positive environmental impact, according to the Coastwatch annual marine litter survey. The lowest levels of bottle and can litter on Irish shores was recorded in over 25 years in 2024. Similarly, IBAL reported a 50% drop in litter from bottles and cans since the scheme launched.
Beyond the environmental benefits, the DRS has enabled fundraising initiatives. The Return for Children campaign, developed with six major children’s charities, has raised over €215,000 to date, which is a powerful example of how circular economy initiatives can deliver social value alongside environmental gains. The DRS is a real and important element of circular economy measures and its early success reflects the strong collaboration between Government, producers, retailers and the community.
The deposit return scheme has become another tax but it is not like a normal tax that might be used to pay teachers, nurses and gardaí. This is a tax that is going into a private organisation. Last year, at the end of 2024 the company had more than 100 million deposits from unclaimed bottles and cans. Last year, the company had a cash pile of €90 million after expenses. The CEO's salary is not declared. That is what I am asking the Minister of State. I am not disputing the fact there has been an increase in recycling, which is welcome and positive. However, there are other aspects to this. This is a significant sum running to millions of euro. It is essentially a tax not used for the running of this State and that is what I am asking the Minister of State to address. Will he please deal with the question? Is he satisfied with the level of money and unclaimed items in the company? Where is that money going? How much are the staff and CEO being paid? The people of Ireland have no choice but to pay this tax.
I reassure the House that the unredeemed deposits are a normal and expected feature of deposit return schemes internationally. As of the end of 2024, €320 million had been refunded to consumers with €66 million remaining unclaimed. This is not a failure. It reflects the early phases of the scheme but it also will naturally reduce as we move forward towards our EU targets of 90% redemption. Importantly, these funds do not sit idle. Re-turn itself is a not-for-profit organisation.
They are being reinvested into the scheme. If we look at the 23% VAT liability, repaying initial start-up costs, expanding reverse vending machines, infrastructure, funding, educational campaigns and contributing to other contingency measures, the reinvestment is essential as part of the scheme. Will will see a reduction in that year on year. The Department is satisfied. It is under appropriate regulatory and administrative controls and we review it on annual basis.
It is over €66 million of unclaimed items in one year. The Minister of State has talked about controls. I have asked him how much the CEO is getting paid and what the salaries in this organisation are. That is the level of control I expect him to declare before us in the Dáil. It is unacceptable that he talks simply about the environmental aspect without addressing the issue the people of Ireland have, which is where the money is going, how much the CEO and senior management in return are getting paid and what the situation is regarding the bin companies. Is it the case that the recycling companies across Ireland will increase their fees? Will families across the country who are struggling in this cost-of-living crisis see their bin fees rise as a result of this? What is the Minister of State going to do to ensure families are protected?
The Deputy rightly asks the questions regarding the unredeemed deposits. I have outlined the reinvestment into the operational costs for setting up the DRS. I have also outlined-----
The salaries?
-----that will see a reduction in those unredeemed deposits as we move forward with more campaigns and more informative education. We are also looking at expanding the DRS for municipal bulk machines to ensure people can come to municipal areas and to address that.
Regarding the salaries, as I said earlier, Re-turn is a not-for-profit organisation. Individual salaries are not reported to the Department. Re-turn is required to publish its overall remuneration and benefits costs in its annual report and that was published last July. From our perspective, we are in continuous engagement with Re-turn, which operates the scheme, and we want to see continuous improvement in how it is being led.
Wind Energy Generation
91. Deputy Noel McCarthy asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment the proposed timeline for auctions for the delivery of the three other sites identified in the designated maritime area plan, which are not included in the Tonn Nua offshore wind auction; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49265/25]
I thank Deputy McCarthy and note his interest in this important issue. The south coast designated maritime area plan, DMAP, was adopted by the Oireachtas in 2024 and designates four development areas for fixed-bottom offshore wind development. An auction process is due to commence on 22 September for the first of these areas, the so-called Tonn Nua site, with capacity for a 900 MW offshore wind farm. We anticipate that a winner will be announced for this site on 9 December. The Tonn Nua project is expected to be operational by 2034 subject to planning consent, which is the next wave of it.
Specifically then on the Deputy's area of concern, arrangements are being made to bring the remaining three south coast DMAP sites to market, ensuring a consistent pipeline of offshore developments will take place over the coming years. A further pipeline of development sites within the national DMAP will follow from 2028 onwards. However, the precise approach to bringing the remaining three south coast DMAP sites to auction may depend on a range of factors, including grid connection options, availability of engineering and environmental data, and market conditions. These matters are being examined in consultation with the offshore wind industry with a view to bringing the sites to auction from 2026 onwards.
Separately, just last week, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and I announced the publication of the national DMAP proposal and accompanying public participation statement. That national DMAP will ultimately designate renewable energy sites around Ireland’s coast that are suitable for offshore wind development, including fixed, floating and floating demonstration locations. The proposal set out information on the scope of the overall plan, timeframes and the required steps in the development of the DMAP over the next two years, as well as the Government’s commitment to extensive and inclusive consultation with the public and stakeholders throughout the process.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I appreciate the efforts that are being made by his Department to progress the south coast DMAP options. I welcome the fact that the first offshore wind option for Tonn Nua areas is expected to begin shortly, with the contracts to be awarded before the end of the year. This is significant progress since the south coast DMAP was first approved last October but it is important that we continue this progress with the development of the other areas of Lí Ban, Manannán and Danu. The development of offshore wind is vital in ensuring our climate change targets and this project promotes sustainability and the security and reliability of supply. I therefore ask the Minister that the remaining options be progressed as soon as possible.
I know the Deputy's interest and concern in this from conversations and consultations that I, other Ministers and the Department have had with those who will seek to build out these facilities. The next auction, as I said, will be later this year. We are hopeful there will be a number of bidders. The important thing then for those who do not win is that they see a further opportunity. One will obviously win. There may be three, four or whatever number of others. It is important from our perspective that we can show that there is a pipeline of opportunities for the others to follow quickly. We are very conscious of that. Some work has to be done between the Department and EirGrid to develop options for further connecting the grid to lead on to those three sites within the overall DMAP. It is about giving certainty, first of all, that the Government is absolutely committed to offshore renewables and then showing that there is a pipeline, not just with those additional three but also around our coastline, as we progress towards 2040, by which point we have commitments to generate up to 20 GW of electricity off our shoreline. We are keenly aware of the necessity to do exactly as the Deputy has identified and I thank him for his interest in that area.
Will the Minister of State provide further information on the exact board of the implementation programme body, IPB? I understand that the IPB is set up to oversee the south coast DMAP but what is the exact make-up of the group and how often have they met to date? I believe the IPB is supported in its work by a marine ecosystems group and other working groups, which will develop an implementation plan and recommend the scope of regional land surveys. Has the membership of this group been decided yet, and if so, has an implementation plan been presented?
I do not have that information available to me today but I am happy to come back to the Deputy directly with it.
I appreciate that.
Solar Energy Guidelines
92. Deputy Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment if he will expand the warmer homes scheme to include solar; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48994/25]
A study by UCC over the last number of years has identified that over 1 million homes in Ireland are suitable for solar and that one quarter of all electricity needed could be produced for those homes. It would have huge saving costs for homes. Unfortunately, though, low-income homes are often locked out of the ability to have solar because their households simply cannot afford it. The costs can run into the thousands. Will the Minister of State expand the warmer homes scheme to include solar and make a statement on the matter?
I thank Deputy Whitmore. The warmer homes scheme, operated by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, on behalf of the Department, is really important in efforts to tackle energy poverty and improve the energy efficiency of homes for those most in need. It is fully funded through carbon tax receipts and the European Regional Development Fund. Last year saw a record spend of almost €230 million, resulting in 7,743 upgrades being provided to low-income households. This year, we have increased the budget to €280 million, allowing for deeper and more complex retrofits. The average cost of upgrades has risen from €2,600 in 2015 to over €29,000 in 2025, reflecting the scale and ambition of the programme. The scheme follows a fabric-first approach, prioritising installation and ventilation to reduce heat loss before replacing heating systems in line with building regulations and best practice. At present, solar PV is not offered as a standard upgrade under the scheme. However, the SEAI is piloting the installation of renewable technologies, including heat pumps and, in a small number of cases, solar PV where major renovations are taking place.
These pilots are helping us assess the suitability of such technologies in the context of energy poverty and long-term value for money. The scope of upgrades under the scheme is kept under ongoing review and my Department continues to work closely with the SEAI to ensure we maximise the impact of every euro spent.
The homes built before 2011 are eligible for part-funded solar PV grants under separate SEAI programmes. We remain committed to ensuring that low-income households benefit from Ireland's renewable energy transition and will continue to explore how best to integrate solar and other technologies into our energy poverty programmes.
The Minister of State will be aware that in 2022, approximately 30% of households in Ireland were considered to be at risk of energy poverty. We are continuing to see the extraordinary stresses that are being put on homes because of the high cost of living, of which a huge component is energy costs. Over recent days and weeks, companies are again increasing their electricity charges, despite the fact that Ireland has the third highest electricity charges in Europe, which is approximately €350 extra on each home. Companies like Bord Gáis and Energia are increasing those prices further, to the extent that it could impose over €200 onto households. We need to look at having long-term and sustainable ways of making households resilient and particularly those who are at risk of energy poverty. Solar panels are an area that could offer this but they have largely been ignored by the Government for low-income homes because the priority has been on retrofitting.
I absolutely share the Deputy's concerns about the high energy bills. That is why we want to ensure that equity is at the heart of our energy transition. The warmer homes scheme is designed to deliver maximum bill savings per euro spent for those most in need. Many of these homes, it is often said, could be cold, damp and poorly insulated. Basic installation can cut energy costs by up to 30%. It is really important that the warmer homes scheme be continued. It has been a game-changer in energy reductions for many homes. On the other hand, solar PV itself without proper installation has only limited benefits because the home continues to leak heat. From our perspective, it does not mean solar PV is off the table. We are piloting solar in some cases and it is really important that this informs future decisions and how we move forward with this initiative.
I know that is the argument that has been put forward over the last number of years but the majority of electricity units in someone's home are used to heat water, so there will not be any leakage from that. That is where a lot of the expenses are. If we can actually heat someone's water, we are going to save them a lot of money on their electricity bills.
In relation to all those companies that are hiking their electricity charges, the Taoiseach said yesterday that there needs to be a focus on them and I absolutely agree. They are hiking their charges and saying it is because of the increase in the grid charges, yet that is not 100% correct. They are hiking the charges way beyond the cost the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, and the ESB are putting onto the extra grid charges. Will the Minister of State relay to the Minister that he needs to bring in those companies? There needs to be a very serious conversation with them to say that they cannot continue to hike prices and put pressure on families. They have done it enough and now it is time to give families a break on this.
I can confirm to the House that the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has written to the energy suppliers and is preparing to meet them over the coming weeks in regard to the challenges around costs. This Government is very much focused on responding through the warmer homes scheme. This year, we have increased the level of funding to €280 million to fully fund upgrades for those who are most at risk and we are also looking at deep retrofits for transforming homes, reducing bills and improving health outcomes. This is on top of the measures to address the immediate affordability challenges, whereby we have extended the 9% VAT rate on energy. We have established the national energy affordability task force, which will bring forward measures before the budget. We are very much cognisant of the need to ensure we have a balanced approach to protecting households but also future-proofing them.
Wind Energy Generation
93. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment the total capacity output available under existing wind generation schemes; the projected output if all wind farms currently at various stages of the planning system were to come to fruition; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49042/25]
A lot of wind programmes are currently in planning. Will the Minister of State indicate what the capacity would be if all of those planning permissions were to come good and deliver those wind projects? What would be the capacity at that stage?
Wind generation is supported mainly through the legacy renewable energy feed-in tariff, REFIT, schemes and the renewable electricity support scheme, RESS, and funded also through public service obligations, PSO. These supports are a critical enabler of the investment needed to underpin a renewables-led energy system.
Over the 2025-26 PSO year, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities reports that over 3.3 GW of wind capacity was supported by the PSO. Of this, more than 2.9 GW was supported under the REFIT and over 0.4 GW under the RESS, with over 1 GW of solar also supported under the RESS. In addition to that capacity, some wind farms operate without PSO support, selling directly into the market or under private power-purchase agreements. Taking all of them into account, the total installed wind generation capacity has reached over 5 GW. Industry sources indicate that approximately 2.5 GW of onshore wind capacity has secured planning permission but is not yet built and that another approximate 1.5 GW of projects are seeking planning permission or are the subject of judicial review.
The Government remains committed to the development of 5 GW of offshore wind capacity with projects in construction by 2030 and energised as soon as feasible thereafter. Projects from the ORESS-1, accounting for 3 GW, are progressing through the planning process within An Comisiún Pleanála. Separately, the 900 MW Tonn Nua site within the south coast DMAP will go to auction this autumn.
Delivering on this capacity, combined with our 5 GW of existing installed wind capacity, will bring us closer to achieving our national ambition of 9 GW of onshore wind and 5 GW of offshore wind in the very near future.
That is all welcome news. In my constituency, there are a number of plans relating to offshore wind. We do not really have the land space to be developing much in the way of onshore wind in Dún Laoghaire but there are two particular projects in the Dublin Array and the Codling Wind Park that will deliver a lot, not just in clean energy but also for the facilities onshore and the use of Dún Laoghaire Harbour to help deliver that. In the context of a windy island like Ireland, the importance of building our capacity, particularly in offshore wind, cannot be understated. We have a real opportunity here. Notwithstanding what the Minister of State has said, how can we speed up the process to ensure that even where things are controversial, we deliver offshore wind in a way that will benefit everybody in this country and on this island?
The Deputy will be aware that with the passage of the national marine planning legislation back in 2021, where we introduced the approach through the designated marine area plans, the approach to identifying those sites and the approach to engaging with stakeholders in a very open and transparent way, it has worked well. Our first DMAP was launched in this House in October of last year and was not judicially reviewed, which to me was a clear indication that the process and the legislative basis on which it was founded is working. It is about that kind of engagement and planning ahead. The approach we had taken up to this was about leaving it up to developers to identify sites. They were known as the phase 1 projects, such as the two the Deputy referred to. The Government moved from that to a plan-led approach whereby the State will identify the areas that are suitable and will work with communities and stakeholders to try to ensure that there is not that level of objection when it goes to the planning process. This is what we are doing now. We announced last Friday a full national DMAP, to follow on from the one in existence, to ensure a plan-led approach and a consultative approach with stakeholders, whether they be fishermen, other sea users or the communities where the infrastructure will have to be built in the first instance to serve the sites or where a grid will have to be built to bring it ashore.
While we were slow getting started, we have an appropriate system in place now that I feel is certainly working but the important thing is to get it moving as quickly as possible.
The Minister of State put his finger on it with regard to public consultation. Some of these projects can be very controversial and it is really important to bring people with them and show them the benefit of the project not only to us all but also to local communities.
In the context of the two projects I mentioned to the Minister of State, I know from speaking to people in Dún Laoghaire that there are two major concerns. One is the loss of visual amenity. As you look out across places like Dalkey Island that have remained unchanged nearly since Viking times, there is a loss of visual amenity. I acknowledge that but in weighing the two up, the balance of correctness, if I could put it that way, lies in building the wind farms.
The other concerns people talk about are environmental impacts, particularly on the sea bed, with regard to plankton farms and sites for the growing of important micro-organisms within the sea. My understanding is the experience from Scotland and the North Sea is that these wind farms create small biospheres where, in fact, the biodiversity increases. Can we help communicate to people that while there may be downsides, the upsides grossly outweigh them in all of these projects?
The Deputy has raised an important point on the environmental aspect, and the construction of certain structures can have that ability to pull together those microsystems. Part of my role in the Department is about ensuring that we meet our commitments - Deputy Whitmore will be familiar with this - in regard to the marine protected areas, an important feature and commitment that we have given to designate 30% of our seas by 2030. In that context, under the same legislation, we hope to move relatively quickly on that. It will not preclude certain development on certain sites that are to be protected from a marine environmental protection perspective, and can give rise to assisting the growth and development of certain biodiversity that was under threat or has already been lost in a significant way. We are trying to advance the two pieces together, both identifying the areas suitable for development for the generation of electricity and protecting our marine environment in line with our international commitments.
I call on Deputy Malcolm Byrne.
Will the Minister of State provide an update on the private wires policy?
That is Question No. 95.
We have skipped ahead. I will have to get that for the Deputy.
I do not seem to have that.
Question No. 95.
I will have to get that. Does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle want to go on to the next one and I will come back to that?
We can take Question No. 97 while we are waiting.
Question No. 96 taken with Written Answers.
Nuclear Plants
97. Deputy Naoise Ó Cearúil asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment if his Department has assessed the potential role of nuclear energy in Ireland's future energy mix; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49081/25]
We have seen an increase in electricity demand and rightly we are focusing on renewable energy. However, we have major challenges in meeting our 2030 and 2050 climate targets. Indeed, the climate action plan commits to 80% renewable energy by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Has the Minister of State's Department assessed the potential of nuclear energy in Ireland's future energy mix?
There seems to be an issue with my questions here.
The Minister of State can speak off the cuff.
I may be required to do that. The Deputy has raised the important issue of-----
It is Question No. 97.
Yes. Nuclear fission-powered electricity generation plants are prohibited in Ireland. The use of nuclear fission for the generation of electricity in Ireland is statutorily prohibited under section 18(6) of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999. It is also of note that no action on nuclear power was included as part of the programme for Government in 2025, Securing Ireland's Future. The programme for Government does not, however, set out the commitment of this Government to achieving 80% of Ireland's electricity generation from renewable sources by 2030.
Our climate action plans recognise that enabling such a transformation of our energy systems will also require a range of supporting measures. This will involve the development of a balanced portfolio of technologies, including storage, to complement other measures such as demand-side response, network development and interconnection to ensure a safe and secure electricity system with increased levels of renewables.
I appreciate that the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 prohibits nuclear power generation in this country and that the programme for Government focuses on renewable energy. I completely understand that, but the question relates to any type of consideration given to nuclear. We look at the likes of small modular reactors that create between 50 MW and 300 MW of energy. What I am saying here is that it is not a completely clean source of energy but it is a cleaner source of energy than fossil fuels. If we really want to achieve our climate targets, we need to look at all avenues available to the State. In particular, I look at the small modular reactors that can be built a lot more quickly. They are smaller and not as large in scale as some of the larger reactors we are aware of in the UK and the US. These SMRs are being developed in the UK, across Europe - in Poland, for example - and in the US and Canada, so we need to start modelling out what the benefits would be to the State if we were to go down the route of these potential SMRs.
In support of my colleague Deputy Ó Cearúil, I think we need to explore nuclear as a potential option. We are all very supportive, for instance, of the Celtic interconnector between Ireland and France, where there is the possibility that we will be obtaining some of our energy from France. Last year, up to 68% of all of France's energy was generated by nuclear power. If we acquire energy from Scotland, similarly, some of that is going to be generated by nuclear.
The debate on nuclear has moved on. I totally understand that in the past we had safety concerns but as a cleaner energy source, while I accept there are issues around how we may dispose of some of the waste, it is something that needs to be considered. I back my colleague in that we really do need to have a debate on it.
I thank both Deputies. I know of their personal interest because both of them, on many occasions, have spoken to me about the necessity to look at that. The Government has taken a decision, and it is a decision that is probably based on historical context, going back to the early seventies when there were proposals at Carnsore to build a nuclear facility and there was a very significant public outcry. I do not think it has ever been revisited since. I take the Deputy's point regarding the newer technologies and small-scale nuclear reactors, which are still somewhat commercially available but there are only a couple of examples, as I understand it, around the world where they are deployed. Other countries have a march on it and are ahead of us on that, and they have built a wealth of experience and knowledge in that area. It is a bit like recognising what you are good at, and we have become good at renewables. We have become good at wind, we are getting really good at solar and we are now starting to embrace, on a wave of investment, offshore. That is where we should focus our attention.
I thank the Minister of State.
If you look at the capacity to generate so much electricity, particularly but not exclusively off our west coast, it far outweighs the issues around nuclear. I am also conscious-----
I thank the Minister of State.
-----of how difficult it is, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will appreciate this-----
This is buying you time, is it?
-----to get permission for a wind turbine. Failing to get permission for a wind turbine and introducing a small-scale nuclear reactor-----
You should conclude, Minister.
-----might not be that much easier.
I recognise the expertise this State has garnered in offshore and onshore wind energy and indeed solar. I was at the launch of the Timahoe North Solar Farm in Kildare only three weeks ago, an excellent facility that will provide energy to a significant number of people in Kildare and across the country. However, my argument here is that if we look to Belgium, for example, they recently extended the operation of two nuclear reactors. These will supply 15% of national electricity demand and help reduce reliance on gas imports. France approved the construction of six new large reactors in 2022, which are expected to meet 10% of electricity demand. The UK, for example, under its 2022 energy security strategy, plans to build eight large reactors and develop small modular reactors, the SMRs that I mentioned.
My argument here is not that we go full throttle into nuclear energy. All I am asking is that we model out the cost benefits of actually looking at and analysing whether nuclear is even an option and whether it is worth looking at and investigating properly. We need to ensure we have energy security moving forward and look at all options.
I have outlined the Government position but that is not to suggest that others who have an interest or some ideas on this should not interrogate the information and the ideas and look into the future as to what is available elsewhere. Of course, I am sure there are educational facilities and research projects that could be engaged by those who are like-minded. From the Government's perspective it is now about being really focused on what we need to do to deliver and not becoming distracted from that. Of course, debates will exist elsewhere. On a personal level, I am happy to look at and review any data that emerges there. I have the answer to the question. I was thrown a bit by Deputy Byrne appearing when the question said-----
We will deal with Question No. 95. I call Deputy Byrne.
Energy Policy
95. Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment to outline his plans for a new policy on private wires. [49010/25]
This relates to the question of energy demand and how we meet it and the importance of progressing as quickly as possible with the private wires policy and indeed the private wires Bill. I welcome the commitment in July by the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, that he is going to progress on this. However, it is now of the essence that we move quickly. He did say it would be priority legislation. I hope the Minister of State can indicate a timeframe to the House today because we know about the demands for energy and we need to have movement on it as quickly as possible.
As the Deputy said, Cabinet approved the private wires policy on 15 July, details of which have been published on the Government website. The policy allows for private wires to be developed in four scenarios: to permit private wires linking a single generation asset to a demand site; to facilitate hybrid connections; where possible to facilitate EV charging; and to allow a customer that self-supplies to provide electricity to a separate customer in a contiguous premises. Work on drafting the necessary legislation to support the policy is now ongoing within our Department and the intention is to bring this legislation to Cabinet for approval in the near term.
As I said, the Department is working with the Office of the Attorney General to progress legislative reform to implement the recently published private wires policy. I expect that the general scheme of the private wires Bill will be submitted for Cabinet approval by quarter 4 of this year. I will keep the House updated on that matter.
The Minister of State knows how urgent this is. I am particularly thinking in terms of industrial demand and whether we can connect solar farms or wind farms into private industry or on the commercial side. In the development of our digital infrastructure, including data centres, it is critical that we move on this. I even suggest this in regard to housing because electricity supply is becoming a problem. A developer in my constituency who is ready to build homes came to me recently and said the only thing holding him up is the fact that ESB Networks is telling him that there is not sufficient supply in the particular area.
We need to set out ground rules and for the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities to be properly resourced. However, as a piece of legislation for this country's long-term economic development, this is essential. We need to see it enacted before next summer.
Following Cabinet approval the Department will work closely with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to commence drafting on the Bill in the new year before seeking Oireachtas approval. The legislation will be drafted to reflect the guiding principles of the policy statement and clarify the necessary regulations to build private wires in the policies for specified use cases. Plenty of examples have been brought to my attention, some of which are in my own constituency, where there are significant constraints on the capacity of the grid to meet the growing demand from industry, data centres and housing. There is an abundance of sites that are able to bring that electricity to the grid. It will be a useful tool in working our way around the constraints that are currently preventing significant development taking place. It is a priority of the Government. It was identified in the programme for Government as something that needs to be addressed and one on which no time will be lost. I thank the Deputy for his interest.
It is critical. When we have a number of companies that are ready to build that infrastructure, we need to facilitate them. We do not need them to be held up in the planning process for long periods. We need that private infrastructure to complement the State infrastructure as soon as possible.
I am very conscious of that. When there are entities and corporations that are prepared to invest their own capital in such schemes, it is an appropriate way to progress and grow our economy. We see the same in housing. It is about bringing in private capital to support infrastructure. It allows us to move more quickly and ensures that the State is not left funding all of it. For that reason, the Government is in full agreement with the Deputy that this important legislation needs to progress without delay.
Energy Conservation
94. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment the percentage of grant applications to SEAI that are withdrawn. [49212/25]
Will the Minister of State provide an update on the percentage of grant applications to the SEAI schemes that are being withdrawn?
The Government is committed to continue delivery of the SEAI's residential and community energy upgrade scheme, which is central to achieving our national retrofit plan targets. This includes delivering more B2 home energy upgrades, revising and improving grants and financial models for homeowners, supporting group retrofits and area-based approach in enhancing energy efficiency to reduce the cost for households. In budget 2025 a record €550 million was allocated across the SEAI's home energy upgrade schemes, which was an increase on 2024 when €421 million supported 53,984 home upgrades. This includes both part-funded schemes and fully-funded upgrades at households at risk of energy poverty.
For homeowners seeking a whole home upgrade to achieve a BER of B2 or better, the national home energy upgrade scheme is the primary route. This scheme is delivered through the SEAI's registered one-stop-shop model which manages the entire process for the homeowner. In 2025, €51 million was allocated, up from €45 million in 2024. Delivery is strong. Some 1,474 upgrades were completed in 2024 and 1,062 homes had been retrofitted at the end of August 2025. That is a 21% increase on the same period last year.
At the start of the national homes energy upgrade scheme journey, homeowners undertook a home energy assessment which provides a detailed roadmap of the works and costs required for each to receive a rating of B2 or better. This empowers homeowners to make an informed decision on whether to proceed with a full upgrade or to choose individual measures under the SEAI schemes.
I asked a simple question - what was the percentage of people who withdrew from the SEAI scheme - and I did not get the percentage. People are telling me that they are withdrawing from the scheme or not applying to the scheme because they do not have the money. It turns out that the people who most need the retrofitting and the upgrading works to their house to bring them to at least a B2 standard cannot afford the money that is needed. For example, heat pumps cost anywhere from €8,500 to €20,000 but the maximum grant available from the SEAI scheme is €6,500.
I know a family in Farranree, Fairhill in Cork who could not get the scheme done. They are pensioners. They are not that old but they are retired. They could not get the scheme done in their house because they did not have the additional money to do it, but their neighbours across the road in an identical house could get it because they had the money. What are we doing? Can we get the figures on how many people are withdrawing? What are we doing to get the support to the people who most need it?
The SEAI has confirmed that it does not record applications that have been withdrawn. It only records them for homeowners who have agreed to proceed with the works through the one-stop shop. However, the SEAI has reported that over 3,500 homeowner efficiency assessments have been completed in 2025. That is the first step in the process. Approximately 44% of those have converted into grant applications under the SEAI. For homeowners who have received the home energy assessment, there are alternative upgrade pathways. I can provide the Deputy with information on the types of grants available. We have increased the amount of the grants from €3,500 to €6,500, with a €2,000 bonus. We have made significant investment in the scheme.
The Minister of State urgently needs to instruct the SEAI to collect data on people who withdraw their applications to the scheme. It needs to find out why people withdraw. A survey by AIB showed that 62% of people who wanted to retrofit and upgrade their houses to become more energy efficient could not afford to do so. The figures are showing that the people who need their homes upgraded and retrofitted, those who need support, cannot get it but the people who have the money and, in many cases, do not need the grants can get them. There is something wrong with the system. We need to know the information as to why people are withdrawing from the scheme and not taking it up. We also need to know why people are not applying.
I do not believe that the increases the Minister of State is talking about keep up to date with the construction inflation of the past three years. People are telling me they cannot afford to upgrade their homes. What are the Minister of State and the Government going to do to support people who need it?
There has been strong demand. There were almost 70,000 applications in 2024. There have been over 40,000 so far this year. Through the national retrofit programme, we are seeing further capital funding under the national development plan. We will see an additional €264 million through the European regional development fund. Local authorities will also have an opportunity through their energy efficiency retrofit programme, which will be funded through the Department of housing. In total, a huge amount of work is being done to support this. We are driving forward to try to reach our national targets. That is underpinned by record levels of investment. As I said earlier, demand is very strong. We are increasing the grant amount on a continuous basis.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.