National Treatment Purchase Fund
1. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Minister for Health the steps she has taken to ensure that Health Service Executive and National Treatment Purchase Fund spending on insourcing initiatives is transparent and accountable; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34742/25]
Deputy Clarke is asking this question on behalf of Deputy Cullinane.
I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for facilitating us.
The Government remains committed to increasing capacity in the public system. The commitment is underpinned by unparalleled levels of investment as we move to universal access to health care. However, until the capacity is in place to meet the increased levels of demand, it is necessary in the interim to make use of all available capacity in the public and private systems to ensure that patients have access to the care they need.
The waiting list action plan 2025 includes targeting the delivery of additional capacity in the public and private systems through a co-ordinated approach by the HSE and the National Treatment Purchase Fund, NTPF. NTPF insourcing initiatives are governed by a memorandum of understanding, MOU, between the NTPF and the relevant public hospital. Under the MOU, the public hospital confirms that any such work is additional work over and above core hospital activity and is specifically carried out to reduce waiting lists.
In early April I requested that the HSE CEO initiate a detailed survey of all insourcing activity within the HSE to include activity funded directly by the hospital concerned and by the NTPF. The review is being co-ordinated through his office, assisted by finance, internal audit, HR and access and integration functions. The outcome of this review is expected shortly and will determine the appropriate next steps. We need to move away from this model by maximising internal underutilised capacity, whilst at the same time not negatively impact on patient waiting times and outcomes.
I want to begin by acknowledging the great work done by staff in Children's Health Ireland, CHI. However, in the past month details of an unpublished report conducted on the clinical department of CHI at Crumlin hospital has been put into the public domain. One of the revelations in the report was a finding of several inappropriate and unnecessary NTPF-funded Saturday clinics conducted by a consultant. The report details how a consultant was facilitated to set up hundreds of appointments for patients who did not need to see him. He then placed these patients on his own waiting lists, which resulted in patients waiting twice as long as they would have otherwise. The report states that 95% of those patients could have been accommodated during normal working hours, that is Monday to Friday, without the need for NTPF funding. How confident is Minister that the audit will be able to identify this type of misuse of funds?
It is an excellent question. It is exactly what I have asked Bernard Gloster to do. Of course, I have to wait for the report to be able to express my confidence in the quality of the work that has come back. The Deputy may take that as a reference example. As I said my opening reply, if there was underutilised capacity, that is, as the report states, other people in the hospital could have held surgeries at an earlier period but did not due to the waiting list management process, that is very serious.
In advance of receiving the insourcing report, we have mandated a centralised referral mechanism so that if someone is referred to surgery, they are not referred to Jennifer, Sorca or whoever. Rather, patients are referred to the system and will then be allocated an appointment according to capacity rather than an individual consultant having the capacity to manage their lists or patients in a way that is unhelpful.
I thank the Minister. There has been a significant increase in Saturday clinics over the past years. An example of this concerns scopes. More than 10% of scopes are now done on a Saturday but the distribution is very uneven across hospitals. Of the scopes carried out in Cavan hospital, one third are now done on a Saturday, that is 900 out of a total of 2,700. However, hospitals are still conducting fewer scopes than they were in 2019 when all services were provided between Monday and Friday. Waiting lists did not reduce during 2024 but they have reduced this year.
The system may be working and I do not doubt Cavan hospital in that regard. However, the CHI revelations are startling and there is real concern that this may be the tip of the iceberg. There is also concern that the quality might be suffering in some of the Saturday clinics or productivity could be higher during Monday to Friday. How is the Minister ensuring that hospitals are preventing the misuse of public funds and controlling spending and waiting lists initiatives? What is the breakdown of weekend hospital activity between the new public consulting contract and the fee paying service clinics? What action does Minister intend to take if she is not happy or there are unanswered questions when Bernard Gloster and the HSE bring forward the audit report?
The Deputy raised the issue I am concerned about, namely that there are incentives to be under productive during the working week with a view to, or which have the outcome of, very busy clinics on Saturdays or bank holiday Mondays. That is exactly the sort of incentive I need to see stop.
I cannot speak to the relative activity because I do not have that data. The Deputy's example is precisely the sort of example that prompted me to conduct the work on insourcing. I wish I was a couple of weeks ahead and had the data and could give her a better answer, but I will have the information during the next Priority Questions session. The Deputy is highlighting exactly what I might be concerned about.
To be fair, Saturday clinics and the NTPF meet those who have waited the longest and there is a need for that work, as she acknowledged. These sorts of incentives or opportunities are precisely what I am trying to identify, along with variations across hospitals or specialisms within hospitals, which is also important. I want to find ways to make sure that we are not permitting those incentives and there is a standardised approach that we can stand over and thereby reduce our dependence on such a system.
Cancer Services
2. Deputy Pádraig Rice asked the Minister for Health if her attention has been drawn to the failure of a number of symptomatic breast disease clinics to see newly referred patients within ten working days (details supplied); the steps being taken to ensure that these clinics meet their targets; if the required resources will be allocated to these clinics to ensure there is adequate staffing; to provide an update on the programme for Government commitment to ‘protect diagnostic pathways and invest in infrastructure and equipment to meet target treatment times outlined in the national cancer strategy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [35169/25]
Access to symptomatic breast disease clinics has become a postcode lottery. Following an urgent GP referral, a person should be seen by a clinic within two weeks. However, timely access to these clinics varies widely. Last year, only four out of nine hospitals met the target of seeing 95% of urgent referrals within two weeks. The other five failed. The Mater Hospital only reached 29%, St. James's Hospital 51% and Letterkenny 58%. Some of these are shocking failures. It should not matter where one lives; no person should have to wait more than two weeks. These are urgent referrals. Where is the sense of urgency?
There are nine HSE rapid access symptomatic breast disease clinics nationally, as the Deputy knows. The HSE has set a target of 95% of urgent referrals being seen within ten working days. Non-urgent referrals should be seen within 12 weeks. The HSE national cancer control programme monitors the performance of these clinics. Last year, national compliance with targets was 76% for urgent and non-urgent referrals but I recognise the variations the Deputy described. While five centres generally met or exceeded the targets during the year, four did not. This is often caused by staff shortages or problems in accessing diagnostics or radiology services.
These clinics consistently operate at full capacity. Unfortunately, any disruption to services can lead to a backlog, which can take time to clear. Where a performance issue arises, the HSE implements site-specific measures, but it may also need to implement regional measures, which we can discuss further. These can include funding additional clinics or providing locum cover where necessary.
The national cancer control programme is also developing new or modified pathways for certain patient cohorts. These aim to make better use of available capacity and provide appropriate access for high-risk patients such as those with a family history of breast cancer. My Department is also reviewing diagnostic services to ensure that capacity is fully maximised. The Government's commitment to cancer services is reflected in significant investment, with more than €105 million provided for cancer services under the national cancer strategy, including €23 million in 2025. Nevertheless, there is a great deal more I would like to say about it. Perhaps I can do so in a supplementary reply.
One report states that one in four people waited longer than recommended for an appointment at these urgent clinics. I would like to share with the Minister the experiences of two women from north Dublin. They had to wait for in excess of the two-week period to be seen by the matters symptomatic breast clinic. In February, one woman was referred by GP due to the presence of two lumps in her breast. However, when the Mater Hospital received the referral, she was told the waiting time to be seen had risen to three months.
Let us imagine receiving this news at a time of extreme uncertainty and fear. It was May before she received her appointment at the Mater. Another symptomatic patient in the Mater who had been waiting for an appointment since April was seen last Monday, two months later. During these agonising two months all these women were told was that the Mater's BreastCheck clinic was understaffed and there was no estimated appointment date to be provided. In what world is this acceptable? What has happened to this country's cancer services? Cancer care used to be regarded as the jewel in the crown of our health services.
The Deputy is right. Yesterday I was at St. James's Hospital and it and Trinity College have become one of the accredited cancer centres of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes. There are many accredited centres but this is at a different level. It is the most prestigious award for cancer control. The Deputy is correct that we have very good services. He asked in what world is this acceptable. There is no world in which it is acceptable and there is no world in which the Mater's figures are remotely acceptable.
Let me also say that like the Deputy I have correspondence from the breast health unit in the Mater and I am deeply disappointed with the content and the tone of the letter being sent to women who are not just going for BreastCheck but who are going because there is a problem. I have written to the CEO of the Mater hospital to express my concern about this and to ask for the number of people waiting on it. I have also asked the regional executive officers for that area and the adjoining area, which includes St. Vincent's University Hospital and Tallaght University Hospital, to come up with a regional solution that meets the needs because this is absolutely unacceptable.
We absolutely need better planning here. A lot of this comes back to staffing. Greater resources must be allocated specifically to breast clinics to ensure adequate staffing throughout the country, regardless of where people live. To secure cancer care pathways greater workforce planning is required but this cannot be siloed in the Department of Health. We need joined-up thinking. The Departments of Health and higher education must work together to ensure people are able to access places on various healthcare courses, especially radiology given its key role in diagnostics. The HSE also has a role as it must ensure there are enough clinical placements for trainees. Crucially, we need to ensure people can stay in Ireland to work in our healthcare system after qualification. As the Minister has said, these are very concerning findings. These are women who have symptoms and who are waiting for too long to be seen. It needs to be addressed urgently.
I thank the Deputy and I agree with him on all of these points. Yesterday at the health committee we covered some of the workforce planning issues and the expansion of training places. It is also a workforce management issue and the variation between hospitals is well noted. I am told that in the Mater there have been long-standing recruitment challenges but they have been stabilised. There has been a consistently high volume of urgent referrals with difficulty in accessing radiology in St. James's Hospital. A lean project is under way to improve efficiencies. In Letterkenny the hospital has met the urgent KPI targets for the past three months, although the figure for the year to date is 85% following a poor performance in January. St. Vincent's Hospital has been meeting the urgent KPI since last September and it is at 99%. Cork University Hospital remains in the 80% to 90% range for urgent referrals.
I know the Deputy did not raise this necessarily in the parliamentary question but Galway University Hospital's performance this year has averaged 33% but it is expected to show improvement in May because of the appointment of a replacement breast surgeon. He and I are having to discuss this on a hospital-by-hospital basis and we have to make sure the system is across itself.
Health Services
3. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Minister for Health the steps she has taken to improve governance and accountability at Children's Health Ireland, CHI; if she will publish the unpublished review of a department at CHI at Crumlin; the steps she has taken to address issues highlighted in that report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34743/25]
Will the Minister detail the steps she has taken to improve governance and accountability at Children's Health Ireland and will she publish the unpublished review of a department at CHI at Crumlin? Will she outline the steps she has taken to address the issues highlighted in the report?
In response to a series of reviews which raised corporate and clinical governance concerns at CHI, I have moved to strengthen governance and oversight structures at CHI in a range of different way. This was done via the appointment of two members of the HSE board to the board of CHI on 28 May. There are more board appointments to be made. This means that all but one members of the board have been appointed since 2024. This is a different reference period to some of these activities.
The service level agreement between CHI and the HSE has been strengthened, and there is significantly increased involvement from the Dublin and midlands regional executive officer. Recognising the need to co-ordinate oversight of the range of matters of focus in CHI in a cohesive fashion, the HSE CEO has established the HSE CHI improvement steering group. These actions are designed to support the new CEO in CHI and enable her to continue with the transformation programme she has started.
Regarding the 2022 internal examination referenced by the Deputy, I have been advised by the Attorney General that I do not have the legal basis to publish this report. I sought that legal advice with a view to trying to put it into the public domain correctly. I received it correctly but it is the property of CHI and I do not have the power myself to publish it. Any publication must be made by CHI. On 16 June, CHI published a summary of the report. Subsequent to my letter on 26 May requesting a response from the CHI board to the report, on 18 June I wrote to the CHI board requesting assurance that the recommendations have been addressed in full. I also emphasised the priority I place on child patient safety issues and asked the board to report directly to me on the status of the children that may have been impacted.
There has been scandal after scandal at CHI. There were inappropriate spring implants, possibly hundreds of unnecessary hip surgeries and now a scathing leaked report of an examination of a clinical department at Crumlin hospital. The report has raised exceptionally serious concerns and it follows the Boston review, the HIQA review into unauthorised springs and the hip dysplasia audit. We would not know about the first two reports if it were not for whistleblowers who came forward, and the third report was released by HIQA. The approach from CHI has been unacceptable. It has stonewalled and refused to release the report in full. It has also refused to report the misuse of public funds to the Garda. The HSE took doing this into its own hands earlier this month. The HSE said CHI did not even share the report with it until after it was leaked. At a time when we hope to move into the new children's hospital in the coming two years, confidence and trust in CHI has never been lower. What steps is the Minister taking to address this? In terms of the new board members coming in, how does she intend to hold the previous board members to account?
The Deputy will note the number of resignations from the board. She has identified a series of important and serious issues, most of which we knew would be coming because of the concerns raised by whistleblowers and others. Reports were correctly commissioned with HIQA by the HSE and CHI. We knew they would come but, as she pointed out, the report that was not shared with either the HSE or the Department raises very serious concerns. It comes from 2022 when it should have been shared and addressed properly but it is today that we have to address it. I recognise that we have nearly a new board. We certainly have a new CEO who was appointed in February and is establishing an executive team around her, all of whom are new to the system. I will work directly with them to ensure this is taken forward. Of course I have stronger confidence because of the increased involvement of the HSE. There is ongoing reporting to me of what is happening about the implementation of the various issues. I am concerned in particular, of course, from a patient safety perspective.
There are still 226 children waiting on spinal surgery. Of these, 34 children have been waiting longer than six months. There are also many more who were removed from waiting lists because they were left for so long that they have become inoperable. One of these is a young lad called Mikey. He is from Mayo and is aged 16. He has severe scoliosis. Last September Mikey's parents were told by CHI that he is not fit for surgical intervention. The letter did not indicate any pathway for Mikey. His parents have asked many times for a second opinion abroad. Last month my colleague Deputy Conway-Walsh, who is from the county, raised this with the Taoiseach and he stated he was of the view that a second opinion should be facilitated. The family has had no update from CHI in this regard. Will the Minister make sure that Mikey and children like him get the second opinion they need?
I want to be very careful of the privacy of Mikey and his family but I have met him and I have met his family. I am aware of the various issues. On foot of meeting them, I put in train a process and perhaps I might speak to the Deputy about it privately rather than on the floor of the Dáil, recognising his privacy.
With regard to scoliosis and the issue of waiting times, it is a source of great frustration to me that there has been so much additional investment, both financial and personnel, into the system but we are not getting what I would regard as a commensurate increase in output or productivity. They sound like harsh words but I mean surgeries for children who need them. It is very important to look at the work the HSE internal auditor will do. The auditor will look at three specialisms, two of which will be surgical and one medical.
The auditor will examine the waiting list management within that, and I imagine that scoliosis will be one of those areas that will be examined. Again, I reiterate the importance of a central referral system, which manages it on behalf of the team, rather than individuals managing their own lists.
Departmental Schemes
4. Deputy Marie Sherlock asked the Minister for Health if she will act to protect front-line healthcare workers impacted by long Covid and who are in receipt of the special scheme of paid leave; if she plans to extend this scheme or recognise long Covid as an occupational illness to quality for occupational injury benefit payments; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34984/25]
As the Minister knows, the scheme for special leave for those who contracted long Covid is due to expire on in four days on 30 June. A total of 166 section 38 organisations and HSE employees are currently in receipt of this payment. To be frank, the response to date has been downright disrespectful and degrading to those who gave so much and risked so much at a time of such uncertainty and risk in this country. What plans has the Minister put in place and what actions has she taken to protect those health workers who have contracted long Covid?
I thank the Deputy.
The role our healthcare workers played during the pandemic cannot be overstated, particular at the very early stage of it. They went beyond the call of duty, working in front-line environments, treating Covid-19 positive patients, particularly in the early days when the control mechanisms were what they ultimately became and while the risk was extraordinarily great. In response to that, a temporary scheme was put in place for 12 months in July 2022 to support eligible staff who were impacted by long Covid in the public health sector. The intention of this scheme was to support those employees working in Covid-19 environments in the time before PPE and vaccinations were readily available. It is my understanding that approximately 159 employees are currently on the special scheme, the majority of whom have been supported on full pay for almost five years.
My Department has always worked hard to ensure supports have been in place for those workers impacted by long Covid. At the Department of Health's request, the now Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation has agreed to extend the scheme on four occasions, most recently at the end of June 2024, when it was extended for a further 12 months for the existing group of employees being supported by it. However, I understand the Department of public expenditure was clear at the time that this was the final extension that would be granted. As such, the special scheme will conclude on 30 June 2025.
I reassure, to the extent that I can, those 159 employees who have been supported by the scheme for up to five years that they will continue to be supported. The full provisions of the public service sick leave scheme will apply for anyone who remains unable to return to work. The sick leave scheme provides full pay for three months and half pay for three months. This is followed by temporary rehabilitative remuneration, which can provide up to a further 547 days of paid leave. The critical illness protocol that forms part of the sick leave scheme may also provide additional supports for up to three years.
I am aware that concerns have been raised by a number of unions about the scheme ending, and I know that the matter was before the Labour Court on 11 June, the findings of which are currently awaited.
As the Minister knows, people's lives have been turned upside down by long Covid. This is not any ordinary type of illness. This was contracted in the workplace, yet there has been a persistent refusal by this State, in sharp contrast to the vast majority of EU member states, to recognise Covid as an occupational illness. The refusal to extend this scheme or to put in place a long-term framework for those who contracted Covid in the workplace reflects a shocking lack of empathy and respect for those workers. The reality is that the sick pay scheme currently in operation across the public service runs out after a period. As workers have described it to me, the special scheme has been a lifeline. There is a different pay calculation for that scheme relative to the ordinary sick pay scheme. The crucial point is that these workers have ultimately been told they are five years on and to get over it, but that is not their lived reality.
There is no intention not to recognise that or to not be empathetic, which is why the scheme for full pay was there for five years. I am aware that the Minister for Social Protection has reviewed the EU recommendation in respect of the recognition of Covid-19, not long Covid, for an occupational illness. Following that review, it was determined that Covid-19 did not meet the requirements to be recognised as an occupational illness in the context of the occupational injuries benefit scheme and the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.
It is important to recognise that the EU advisory committee on health and safety recommended the recognition of Covid-19 and not long Covid as an occupational illness in health and social care settings. As I said, the Minister for Social Protection reviewed those recommendations and did not recognise it in the context of the occupational injuries benefit scheme. While many EU countries recognised Covid-19 as an occupational illness or injury, this related to Covid-19 and not long Covid. It is not clear that any country sustained full pay for workers suffering from long Covid in the same way Ireland has for its public health workers through the special scheme we have had to date.
With respect, the Government is splitting hairs in distinguishing between Covid-19 and long Covid. Clearly, long Covid resulted from Covid-19. The reality is that the request has been for a framework to be put in place to support these specific workers. We are only talking about health workers. We are not talking about gardaí or the many other front-line workers who went out to work during that period. The Government gave false hope last year that some sort of scheme would be put in place. Now those hopes have been dashed. It is shameful that people have had to go to the High Court and that unions have had to go to the Labour Court to try to get respect for those workers who contracted this illness in the workplace. My direct appeal to the Minister is that she ensures some sort of new scheme will be put in place in specific recognition of those workers, their experiences, their desire to get back to work and their need to be supported. The scheme should be separate from the sick pay scheme that exists in the health service.
Again, I recognise that the findings of the Labour Court are still awaited and I respect that. I will also reiterate the terms of the sick leave scheme. Having been on full pay for five years, the healthcare workers may receive further full pay for three months, half pay for three months, temporary rehabilitative remuneration for 547 days of paid leave and the critical illness protocol that forms part of the sick leave, which provides additional support for up to three years.
I appreciate the distinction, importantly, the Deputy has not made between Covid and long Covid. Nevertheless, when we look at the EU comparison, we are not aware of any case such as that. If the Deputy is aware of any case where any country sustained full pay for workers suffering from long Covid in the way Ireland did, I ask her to please bring it to me. We have tried to take an empathetic and supportive approach. The Minister for Social Protection has reviewed the EU position to determine how this works with the occupational injuries benefit scheme. The public service sick leave scheme is an important scheme in the context of supporting all people in the public service.
Health Services
5. Deputy Charles Ward asked the Minister for Health the process she is currently undertaking in choosing a location for a surgical hub for the north west, as outlined in the programme for Government; the factors that will be considered in choosing the location; if this decision will be based solely on geography, population, demographics, day case numbers and staffing numbers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [35141/25]
It will be no surprise to the Minister what I am asking her today. The decision of where to locate the surgical hub in the north west is an important one. Therefore, transparency in the decision-making process is vital. Will she outline, in detail, what factors will be considered when choosing the surgical hub for the north west?
I thank the Deputy.
As part of the Government’s ambulatory care policy and in advance of the new elective hospitals, the HSE is developing surgical hubs across the regions. They will play an important role in separating scheduled and unscheduled care, reducing waiting times, thereby improving access and care for patients. The programme for Government committed to delivering six new hubs and exploring the provision of an additional surgical hub for the north west. No decision has yet been made on a location for this hub and the business case has not yet been submitted to my Department. I visited Letterkenny on 1 May to better see and understand the hospital and the supporting environs, such as the 110-bed community nursing unit across the way that is under construction and the excellent Errigal hub, which is also across the way from Letterkenny Hospital.
On 11 June, I believe I met with all Oireachtas Members for Donegal. Last week, I also met with representatives of doctors and consultants in Letterkenny, who have engaged with me very constructively and positively on this issue. It was a wide-ranging discussion, and I have committed to meet with them again soon. I am open to listening to them and to understanding the issues, which I share, regarding surgical capacity in Letterkenny in the medium and long term. I look forward to my next engagement with them to best determine the way to deliver health care for the people of the north west.
I thank the Minister for outlining that. The location of the surgical hub has generated a lot of public interest. It has the potential to impact many people's lives across the north west. It is important we get it right. As I said to the Minister, this is not a Sligo versus Donegal issue. The north-west region alone is disadvantaged in many ways. We should not be forced to fight over squeezed resources. Ideally, to address the imbalance in healthcare and to meet the current demand, two surgical hubs should be established. All I can say, as someone who has worked on the ground in Donegal, is that the case for a surgical hub in Letterkenny is overwhelming. Donegal consultants and GPs who met with the Minister last week outlined this. I am asking her to take their experiences and all the data presented into account. The public needs reassurance that the decision will be data-driven and free from influence.
I thank Deputy Ward and I assure him, representatives from Donegal, the consultants and doctors in Letterkenny and the people of Donegal more broadly that I will do precisely that. I am committed to that region. That is why I visited it a number of weeks into becoming Minister for Health in order to understand for myself. I cannot look at it on a map or look at drawings. I have to be there to understand the dynamics and to listen to people, which is precisely why I went and have tried to engage in this way. No decision has been made yet. I ask Deputy Ward to give me a little bit more time to work out how to manage this.
I wish to update the House on the operation of the surgical hubs. I was in St. James's Hospital yesterday. To update the House, the surgical hub that has opened in Mount Carmel Community Hospital has seen 1,000 patients already. The CEO of St. James's Hospital informs me that its pain relief list is nearly clear because they are able to give pain injections. The surgical hubs are really important.
In respect of what Deputy Ward describes, I know and respect the geography of Donegal. It is important we have capacity there to deliver these different services. I ask Deputy Ward to allow me a little bit of time. I am trying to work on it.
I thank the Minister for her engagement on this matter. She has been proactive and committed to ensure that all the data and experiences are being taken into account. We appreciate this. In Donegal, we are grateful the Minister is listening to us. We are fighting our corner and are willing to listen. The Minister is taking all the situations into account. We appreciate and understand that.
All the TDs in Donegal are united on this matter. We are disappointed and honestly shocked that the HSE decided no consideration be given to Letterkenny for the surgical hub, despite overwhelming data presented to it, including the geographic population, demographics, day case numbers and staffing numbers of the hospital. It is hard not to feel a bit despondent when faced with this. I truly appreciate the Minister's consideration and I look forward to engaging with her in the future on this matter.
I thank Deputy Ward and I hear what he is saying about his experience of the HSE. That is important. It is also important to reflect on local hospital management and their responsibility to advance cases on behalf of the hospital. When I met Deputies from Donegal, I went through the projects that had been advanced and supported. I recognised there was, in my view, insufficient surgical ask by the local hospital management. While I am not trying to deflect from the surgical hub issue in any sense, it is also important there is a real development control plan for Letterkenny University Hospital for the medium and long term in the way that has been successful in Galway and other places. I strongly urge Deputies to pressure for and demand this sort of approach for Letterkenny. However, do not allow me in any way to attempt to confuse that with the specific surgical hub issue, which is more pressing and immediate.
Sports Facilities
125. Deputy Joanna Byrne asked the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport his position on the redevelopment of the landmark Ulster GAA stadium, Casement Park; and the steps his Department is taking to support the project to construction phase; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34632/25]
I thank the Deputy. In February of last year the Government agreed to a range of funding allocations of more than €800 million to affirm its commitment to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the UK Government to make cross-Border investments that will make the island of Ireland a better place for all of us who call it home to live. This is evidence of course of our commitment to Strand 2 of the Good Friday Agreement and of North-South co-operation. It is the largest ever package of Government funding for cross-Border investments.
As part of this wider set of commitments, the Government announced a commitment of €50 million through the Shared Island Fund to contribute to construction of a redeveloped Casement Park in Belfast. This is both a North-South and an east-west project. It is the Government's wish that the ground will be made available to a wide range of sporting and cultural events.
Consistent with the Government's on funding for large scale sports infrastructure, principles for funding of the project will be agreed such that it is accessible to and will benefit a range of sports, and is operated to facilitate equality, diversity and inclusion in sport, including supporting cross-community relationships in Northern Ireland and throughout the island.
I welcome the UK Government’s recent funding commitment of £50 million, as part of the UK Chancellor's spending review, for redevelopment of Casement Park. I have met, as has the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, with the GAA recently to discuss how the project can move forward without further delay.
The Government and the UK Government have each made significant funding commitments to support the delivery of a redeveloped Casement Park. It is now for the Executive and the GAA to confirm their respective funding commitments for the project, which each date back to 2013, and to define the overall funding package available that will allow redevelopment to proceed. I am hopeful that this total amount would then be sufficient to see the project move ahead without delay. The Government will continue to engage positively with all stakeholders to encourage that outcome.
I welcome the Minister of State's comments about North-South co-operation and striving to build cross-community relationships. The amount pledged by the Government has been broadly welcomed in all corners of our country, along with the £50 million from the UK Government, the £62 million from Stormont and the £15 million from the GAA.
Although the project is still some way short of the £260 million price tag and we expect that to rise due to inflation, the progress in recent weeks is welcome, despite the many delays. The critical thing now is to bring everyone together to ensure that work is started on the stadium as soon as possible. This will not be just beneficial to the GAA but will be of huge social and economic benefit to Belfast and to all of us in creating jobs and attracting investment.
I also welcome the comments of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste last Friday following the North-South Ministerial Council meeting reiterating the Irish Government's commitment to this project and that they stand ready to assist it. I urge the Government to do all it can to support this project through to completion.
We are all united in this House on the importance of this project going forward. That is very much represented by the Government's financial commitment to the project as well.
When the redevelopment of Casement Park was first mooted in 2013, a budget of £77.5 million was envisaged to complete the project, made up of £62.5 million from the Northern Irish Executive and UK Government at that time and £15 million from the GAA. Of course, as the Deputy said, costs have increased significantly and the overall cost projection in that intervening 12-year period. In recognition of this and of the significance of a redeveloped Casement Park as a facility for Belfast and Ulster both for Gaelic games and for other sports, that €50 million of shared island funding was allocated by the Government in 2024. However, we stand ready now to work with all stakeholders. At the moment it is really with the GAA and the Northern Ireland Executive to engage on their funding commitment, which dates back to 2013, when the overall cost tag was £77.5 million for the project. We will certainly work with both the GAA and the Executive to be as constructive as possible to see what is a really important project come to fruition.
The delays are regrettable. They are, unfortunately, a sign of the times in which we live. None of us wants this opportunity to slip away and to be left looking back with regret in the years to come having made no progress. I note and appreciate the Minister of State's collegial tone. I look forward to working with the Department and both the Minister and Minister of State to assist in any way I can, going forward.
I thank the Deputy. It is appropriate that we discuss the issue today, given the good progress we have seen. All of us welcome the commitment of €50 million from the British Government. Let us now continue to move forward. The stadium has been a tremendous loss to Belfast, the province and the island. It has fallen into disrepair and is not being used. We want it to be rebuilt and redeveloped so that its full potential is realised. We look forward to working with everyone to achieve the objective.
Departmental Reviews
126. Deputy Robert O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport when he expects to receive the findings from the independent review of the night-time economy pilots; and if he anticipates these findings will recommend the appointment of night-time advisers across all local authorities. [35189/25]
Will the Minister outline when he expects to get the findings of the independent review into the night-time economy? Does he anticipate the findings will recommend that a night-time adviser is appointed to each of the county councils?
I thank the Deputy. In support of action 19 in the report of the night-time economy task force and as part of the Department's key role in driving the night-time economy in Ireland, we are funding nine night-time economy advisers in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Kilkenny, Sligo, Longford, Buncrana and Drogheda.
The night-time economy pilots are a significant project within the night-time economy policy area and arguably one of the most impactful. This year, I have allocated just under €1.4 million in funding to support these pilots to cover salary costs and a funding package to roll out their plans, including support for Culture Night Late and Cruinniú Late.
The advisers are helping to drive and support a more sustainable night-time economy in their local areas. The Department engages with them regularly and supports their development. They also work collaboratively on larger projects, which have included a late-night transport campaign in partnership with the National Transport Authority and a late-night safety campaign. Each is responsible for developing specific action plans for their own areas. The Department has detailed service level agreements with each local authority setting out key objectives and deliverables.
Following a competitive tendering process in 2024, Communiqué International was appointed to conduct a review of the nine night-time economy pilots to look critically at the structures involved in supporting the advisers, the visibility and impact of each in their respective areas, the future roll-out of the pilots, whether a further roll-out is warranted and what needs to be put in place.
I understand that the review of the pilots has now concluded and the subsequent report is due to be finalised very shortly. The report will detail a set of recommendations in respect of the future of the pilots. I have not seen the report yet as it is not finalised and, therefore, I am not in a position to comment about what the findings are likely to be. Once the report is received, we will undertake a consultation exercise with the County and City Management Association and the wider night-time economy implementation group about the recommendations on the future roll-out, prior to publication. I expect publication to take place soon after that.
It is good to hear support for the plan, especially in respect of public transport, which is a particular difficulty outside Dublin when people try to get in and out to venues in cities.
I attended the launch of the report from the Give Us The Night campaign yesterday. Its members have been campaigning for reform of the Irish nightclub industry for more than 20 years. Parts of that industry are still regulated by the 1935 Public Dance Halls Act. We need renewal in the nightlife sector. It is in a bad way. There are 23 nightclubs in all of Dublin and none in the north of the county. Shenanigans in Skerries is long gone. This needs to be addressed and discussed.
I would also like to mention the Oireachtas broadcast unit workers and their precarious employment. I urge the Minister to meet them, if he can. Their dispute seems to have cross-party support. It would nice for them to be heard.
I thank the Deputy. The Oireachtas broadcasting unit, as the Deputy knows, is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. All parties are represented at that commission. Those are ultimately the people who have responsibility for the operation and running of the Oireachtas. It would not be appropriate for me to cut across the Ceann Comhairle and members of the Oireachtas commission.
In response to the comments the Deputy made about the night-time economy, much progress has been made in this space. During the week, for instance, the Government made a decision to establish a Dublin task force. This is not just a Dublin issue. It is an issue that relates to small towns and villages and other regional centres. I was glad to hear the Deputy reference the improvements that have been made to public transport. That is encouraging, although more in that space needs to be done. I see it in my own area. The Government has made significant investments in rural transport. All of that, together with the review of the report once I have finished it and can lay it before the House, will add substantially to the whole night-time economy.
I thank the Minister. We can work on this issue on a cross-party basis. I thank him for his contribution and look forward to the publication of the report.
I acknowledge the Deputy's support for the sector. He has been consistent in his remarks.
Departmental Schemes
127. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport the process undertaken for deciding on successful grant applicants for the grassroot music venues support scheme funding; if regional dispersal of the awards was considered; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34955/25]
This question relates to the process undertaken for deciding on the success of grant applications for the grassroots music venues support scheme funding. Was regional dispersal of awards considered? Will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy. I launched the grassroots music venues support scheme in March this year to support small and established music venues that promote themselves and are known in the community for programming grassroots music artists, in recognition of the contribution they make to the music industry and the wider night-time economy. The support scheme aims to provide employment opportunities for emerging artists and professionals, including production staff and crew, who are dependent on live performances. The scheme operated with a total fund of €500,000 and grants were available of up to a maximum of €15,000 to host events showcasing the talent of emerging grassroots artists performing live music that they have written or created themselves.
A total of 96 applications were received by the Department and assessed strictly in accordance with the guidelines of the scheme. In line with the published criteria, applications were processed by my officials strictly by order of date and time of receipt, that is, on a first come, first served basis. In addition, venues had to meet the eligibility criteria in order to qualify for funding. Venues had to demonstrate that they promote themselves and are known in the community as an established live music venue or dance venue with grassroots music performance forming a core part of their programming. The venues had to operate with a capacity of 500 or less. Venues were also required to submit evidence, in the form of promotional material, photographic evidence and ticket sales, of a strong track record over two years, 2023 and 2024, of regularly programming grassroots music events.
Applications were, as I said, assessed on a first come, first served basis. While regional dispersal of the awards was not considered as part of the assessment process, I am satisfied that the grants awarded demonstrate a good regional spread. In addition, the important feedback and insights gained from this pilot edition of the scheme will help inform us of any future decisions in respect of the scheme.
I understand that some people might be disappointed, as I have already said. I recognise the value of this scheme to venues across the country and I am committed to considering another phase of this support in the not-too-distant future.
The main question here is whether applicants were aware when they submitted their applications that the scheme was run on a first come, first served basis. In March this year, the application process closed. There were 96 applicants, some of whom, although we do not know how many, did not qualify. Only 33 applicants were granted any money from the pot. Even though €5,000 or up to €15,000 could be allocated, every one of the applicants whose application was granted received the maximum amount. There is still a shortfall of €5,000 in the fund, which could have been allocated but seems not to have been. The main question is whether any of the applicants know before others about the secret change. There was no indication in advance that this was going to be allocated on a first come, first served basis.
The Deputy will appreciate it was a pilot scheme that had a relatively small amount of money available and attracted considerable interest. The officials in my Department had to ascribe a basis for the allocation of the moneys, as I have outlined. They also had to cut it off at a certain point because there was no point in continuing secula seculorum. We will be doing this again and will have regard to those who were unsuccessful this time around. I hope to build the scheme into the budget for 2026 at a much higher level. We will take account of the findings from the initial tranche of the pilot.
Hopefully, it will be put on a much more concrete basis in future, akin to something like the sports capital grants, where it will be done regularly. I want to try to support as many as I can and I want to support the smaller ones in particular. This was a first stab at it. In fairness to the officials in the Department, they did their best with a very small amount of money.
I welcome the money, as does the industry. The Minister mentioned the sports capital grants. It would be chaotic if that scheme were to be run on a first come, first served basis. When opening and closing dates are issued, all the applicants have to be assessed case-by-case based on their qualifications. The Minister or the officials can then put them in whatever order will be acceptable. This would be in contrast to saying in the middle of an application scheme, however, that it is first come, first served and hard luck to all those after number 33 that do not qualify. This seems to have been the case in this regard rather than looking to see if the money could be divided up in a more equal way, or perhaps even look at a regional distribution. The fact no venue north of Galway or west of Louth got any of the funding suggests something else is going on here. I welcome that the Minister is going to run this scheme again, but I ask him to please examine it and run it in a different way from what it looks like was done in this instance.
Regarding the previous question Deputy O'Donoghue raised, it will be appreciated by Deputy Ó Snodaigh that a small town like Buncrana has a night-time economy adviser that the Department made provision for. Many towns in Ireland that are much bigger than Buncrana do not have one. This is the basis of pilots. There will always be disappointment but once the pilots are concluded, that will give us an opportunity to take lessons from the scheme. I compared this to the sports capital grant. I know what the Deputy said was a bit tongue-in-cheek and he appreciates I would not ask anybody to divvy out €350 million on a first come, first served basis. This is €500,000. It is a start. It is regrettable that the party opposite is trying to undermine and pick holes in a scheme that, ultimately, I am trying to get into the budget. It has been welcomed by the night-time economy and the venues. Ultimately, there is disappointment. There was going to be disappointment when there was only €500,000 but I hope to be able to allay that disappointment in future. Rather than having a go at the scheme, it might be a more productive use of time to see if there were suggestions the party opposite might propose for the scheme in future.
I gave the Minister the suggestion that he not do it on a first come, first served basis. There is a basis that I outlined, so I ask him not to misrepresent what I said. I welcomed the fact that this was going to happen and also welcomed him indicating he was going to have another grant scheme.
Television Licence Fee
128. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport if he will abolish the TV licence and replace it with a tax on big tech companies to fund public service broadcasting. [35187/25]
The TV licence is a regressive, unjust tax.
Ah Jesus.
The richest household in the country has to pay the same €160 as the poorest eligible household in the country.
Oh my God.
Increasing numbers of people are voting with their feet and boycotting the TV licence. Will the Minister read the writing on the wall, scrap this regressive tax and replace it with a levy on big tech corporations?
The question is whether I will abolish the television licence and replace it with a tax. No, I will not. That is the end of that. I have no notion of doing it. That fund is in place to support RTÉ and public service broadcasters. It also supports Sound and Vision. I have no intention of replacing it. I also have no intention of going down a cul-de-sac as the Deputy would like us to do, which would be a road to nowhere for RTÉ and everyone associated with broadcasting. The short answer is "No".
I thank the Minister. I presume he accepts that the tax is deeply unpopular. Licence sales have plummeted since the Tubridy scandal and everything else that came out in terms of the behaviour of those at the top of RTÉ. In 2022, €950,000 was paid. This dropped to €825,000 in 2023 and €790,000 in 2024. This represents a drop of more than 155,000 households that are refusing to pay, either in protest or because they cannot afford to pay this regressive flat tax that takes no account of ability to pay.
I suspect that RTÉ's appalling coverage of the genocide in Gaza has contributed to the further drop in people buying TV licences, when RTÉ often continues to use a both sides framing of what is a horrifically asymmetrical conflict in using terminology like "Hamas-run health ministry" and providing platforms for representatives of the genocidal Israeli State.
I am here to answer questions regarding communications, so I will answer the question on communications. There was not really a question in the Deputy's second contribution. My position remains the same. The television licence is not a tax, by the way. I do not see that reference anywhere in the legislation, so I do not know what hat he drew that rabbit out of. It is an important funding mechanism for RTÉ. The Deputy would be the very first person out in RTÉ protesting if the Government were to in any way reduce funding to it. He wants to have his cake and eat it. On this, I am not going to go down the cul-de-sac where he just wants to erode the tax base of every element of public expenditure and revenue generation. He seems to think there is a phantom entity out there that can pay for everything bar yourself. That is the way he operates. In the real world of a constitutional democracy, that is not the way things work. If he ever gets the opportunity to spend a day in government, maybe he will realise that.
The Minister might tell us if considers all the countries across Europe that have abolished TV licences not to be constitutional democracies. Is the test of being a constitutional democracy having a TV licence? He might clarify that. I presume he is aware that just over one third of funding for RTÉ and public service broadcasting comes from the TV licence. It is not even where a majority of funding comes from. The Minister may not be aware of our proposals in RTÉ for the People: A Radical Plan to Transform RTÉ and Public Media, which would increase funding for public service broadcasting, and takes on board many of the recommendations of Coimisiún na Meán and does so not by imposing this regressive flat tax on ordinary households, but on the big tech corporations making huge profits. I do not know if the Minister is aware of this fact. I do not know if he is aware of the parasitical role these corporations play on journalism, where they are not creating any of this content but getting most of the advertising revenue from it. It clearly makes sense, therefore, to allow those companies to pay. I will continue to support those who refuse to pay the TV licence. I warn the Minister this number is increasing. It seems even An Post has given up pursuing people, if we look at the number of prosecutions, which are also dropping.
The Deputy is no stranger to RTÉ and he gets a fair crack of the whip there. Of course, he never uses the opportunity to express his thanks for the unbridled coverage he seems to get from RTÉ on a day in, day out basis. Those of us on this side of the House might have something to complain about if there was a fairness test. I do not, however, because it is a public service broadcaster and I am not going to interfere in editorial coverage.
It sounds like the Minister is interfering now.
The Deputy has form in this space. He does not want to pay for anything. He feels that everybody else should pay for something else other than him. He is entitled to start whatever campaign it is he wants to start to undermine another public service. I do not wish him the best of luck with it. Most people do not either. When he does get an opportunity to sit on this side of the House, with whoever it is that will actually have him as a partner in government, he will then see there is more to running a public service than a megaphone.
Artists' Remuneration
129. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport if his Department plans to expand the basic income for the arts scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34053/25]
I was sorry to hear about the Minister's ill health recently and I wish him the best of luck with it in future too. The basic income for the arts scheme is an initiative we in Aontú have supported for many years. Many artists live in poverty and deprivation and have lives full of economic anxiety. The basic income for the arts scheme is designed to reduce that deprivation and to help artists to create. Will the scheme be expanded in a manner that will encompass more than the current 2,000 recipients of this income?
I thank the Deputy for the question and for his remarks at the start of his contribution. The programme for Government commits to assessing the basic income for the arts pilot research scheme to maximise its impact. I appreciate the importance of the basic income support for artists, which is why last week I announced that the Cabinet had agreed to my proposal to an extension of six months to allow further evaluation of the pilot data. This will also give sufficient time to engage in stakeholder consultation and to evaluate the data which will provide the evidence base for Government to make decisions on the next steps.
The primary objective of the scheme is to help artists deal with the precarious incomes and to prevent talent from leaving the sector for economic reasons. Evaluation of the pilot is and has been continuous, with participants completing a detailed survey every six months. The Department has been undertaking a comprehensive research programme based on this data. I am aware that there is broad-based support for the scheme, and I recently met with the National Campaign for the Arts to discuss the scheme. I intend to bring proposals for a permanent intervention to Cabinet as part of budget 2026 based on the evidence arising from the research programme and stakeholder engagement.
The current scheme costs just under €35 million per year to provide the payment to 2,000 recipients. The cost of a six-month extension is €16.7 million.
The net overall cost of the pilot scheme to the Exchequer is likely to be less, given the high number of recipients who were previously on social welfare supports prior to the scheme. A cost-benefit analysis currently under way should bring further clarity to the overall costs.
While the research phase of the pilot scheme is still ongoing, it is clear from evidence collected to date under the scheme that it is having a positive impact on participants. The scheme support is hugely valued by artists in receipt of it. It has been the subject of much positive commentary both at home and abroad and makes an important statement about the value that the Government and Ireland place on the arts. A Government decision will be required on a successor scheme once the research is concluded.
First of all, it is interesting that we do not know the net cost. We know the cost but many of these recipients were on social welfare previously.
I ask the Minister to speak to the other aspect of this, namely, the impact it is having on the creative sector at present.
Much of the study, and the information, has been on the 2,000 recipients but there is a control group of 6,000 other individuals who applied for this income. I would be interested to know how those in the control group are experiencing being an artist in an economically difficult situation. If that information was available to the Opposition, it would be an important part of the discussion and the development of this fund. It is worrisome that there is no evidence as yet - maybe it is the Minister's plan - that the scheme will be expanded to the other 6,000 people who have applied for this. There are few income supports that are given at random to a small sample of the people who need them. Most income supports are given to everybody who needs them.
I agree with the Deputy, to be honest about it. It has shone a light on the precarious nature of the income, which was the initial overriding consideration my predecessor had when this scheme was brought in. Not everybody was enthusiastic about this scheme when it was brought in but, qualitatively and quantitatively, when we have the research concluded, it will demonstrate in a clear way that this is a good scheme.
Ultimately, I would love to be able to broaden it, but it will be resource dependent in the context of the budget. First of all, I will have to get Cabinet approval for its continuation as a scheme. The amount of funding that will be made available to it will obviously be a determining factor in respect of the number of people we will be able to support. We will also have to have consideration, as the Deputy rightly said, for those who would have loved to be part of the initial scheme but who, unfortunately, for one reason or another, were not.
There is a bit to roll on this yet but the most important thing is that the Government, the Department and I, as Minister, are committed to it.
One of the difficulties is that for many, in reality, being an artist is synonymous with poverty. While now and again on the news or in the newspapers we see people who do economically well from their art, they are a tiny minority of that group. Historically, we know of artists who died as paupers only to have their art appreciated after their deaths. It is important that there is an understanding of the value of the work artists do in reflecting back to society who we are and what we are about. There should be space given for that cohort of individuals to be able to create and produce their work.
I ask the Minister that any information he currently has on the impact of the fund on the creativity of the 2,000 artists who are in receipt of it, but also any of the qualitative analysis of the control group, be given to the Opposition as soon as possible or published in order that we can understand the benefits better.
I will take the last part first. Once I have had an opportunity to digest the material - the Deputy would accept that is not unreasonable - it will give me an opportunity to make further decisions. As regards the result of the analysis and the possible publication, we want to be sensitive to people's individual identities, etc. I do not want to compromise people one way or another. I also am conscious, as I stated, that there are a number of people who did not get to participate on the scheme.
It is important to point out that even outside of the scheme there is significant support being provided by my Department, indirectly or directly, to the arts. The total budget for the Arts Council is of the order of €140 million. This is not insignificant. It has grown quite large over the past number of years under successive Ministers and we hope to be able to continue that trajectory during the lifetime of the Government.
Sports Funding
130. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport the total budget and allocations for elite sport athletes; his plans to enhance that amount in the lead up to the next Olympic Games; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34959/25]
I ask the Minister about funding for elite athletes in Ireland ahead of the next Olympic cycle.
As the Deputy will be aware, for the Paris Olympic cycle 2021-2024, the Government provided a record level of investment of approximately €89 million towards high-performance sport. This was a substantial increase on the €59 million invested for the previous Tokyo cycle. In line with the Government's target of delivering €30 million per annum for high-performance sport by 2027, as indicated in the national sports policy, Sport Ireland has announced that €27 million will be invested in high-performance sport over the course of this year. This increased funding for high-performance sport will reflect, in particular, Sport Ireland's High Performance Strategy 2021-2032, which provides the overarching policy framework for the development of the high-performance system for the next two Olympiads, that is, Los Angeles the next time around, in 2028, and Brisbane in 2032.
The international carding scheme provides financial support to athletes for their training and competition programmes. The primary purpose of this funding is to support Irish athletes in reaching finals and in achieving medals at European, world, Olympic and Paralympic levels. This year, Sport Ireland will invest €4.5 million under the international carding scheme and the player funding scheme for men's and women's senior teams. Through the Sport Ireland international carding scheme, 129 individual athletes and others on relay teams will be supported across 16 different sports. Sport Ireland also provides €350,000 of Government funding in direct athlete support to Golf Ireland through the Golf Ireland professional scheme.
The task ahead is to sustain and build on what has been achieved to date. More athletes, coaches on stable contracts and additional services will be needed in the coming years to enable national sporting bodies to carry through well-funded, stable high-performance programmes. Therefore, the importance of collaboration in preparing for these games, in particular between Sport Ireland, the Olympic Federation of Ireland, Paralympics Ireland and the relevant national governing bodies of sport, should also be recognised.
With the benefit of considerable support from the Government, I am confident that Team Ireland's participation in the next Olympic and Paralympic Games will build on the successes of recent games.
It must be recognised initially that, as the Minister of State outlined, since the previous Olympic cycle funding has dramatically improved, which is very welcome, but he will be aware that there are probably more challenges facing our elite athletes than ever before. I speak specifically about aspects of social media and the pressures that brings. Many athletes are having to try to find alternative streams to support them in taking time of work or, in some cases, giving up their jobs and dedicating themselves to sport. Built in with those pressures are mental health concerns as well. There is the possibility of burnout because athletes are training at such an immense level.
The dramatic increase in funding is welcome but, obviously, the job we have here is to ensure that we bring home more medals in the future, which is what we all want. The nation gets a lift every time our athletes go out and perform and bring home the goods. Our job is to continue to highlight that they always need additional funding.
It is fair to recognise we have come a long way and a large part of that has been down to the funding that the Government has put behind our athletes, alongside really good governance and planning and strategic direction, both by Sport Ireland and the national governing bodies but, of course, on top of all of that and most important is the commitment and excellence of our athletes. That contributed to us having our most successful Olympic Games ever in Paris last year with a medal haul across a number of disciplines, some of which we did not have a strong history in.
I was glad to address the Olympic Federation of Ireland AGM yesterday evening with many of the governing bodies in attendance and, indeed, to congratulate all of them collectively for the work they have done in supporting athletes. That is something we, as a Government, are committed to continuing to do. We are committed to continuing to back that effort and back our athletes with good strong funding but also, importantly, to making sure we are backing athletes in terms of their well-being. That is why we have also supported the Federation of Irish Sport in appointing an athlete support manager in September last year and also why we are backing the Sport Ireland athlete career transition programme to make sure athletes are supported in their transition from a sporting life to professional life after that.
I do not think I need to recite them all but I will give a few examples. Paul O'Donovan, who we all know from the rowing world, is practising as a surgeon. Sophie Becker was working in a full-time job in a pharma company until recently. Phil Healy was working as a software engineer. They are all doing this while competing at the top level in their sport. The dedication those people demonstrate is immense. I do not think anyone in this Chamber could give the commitment and dedication they do to their respective trades.
On funding in the wider sense in terms of LSSIF and putting money into facilities, not only for the elite athletes but also the amateur athletes who aspire to one day make it to professional or international status, will the Minister of State give us a run-down of the next round of the LSSIF and when he anticipates that might be?
I acknowledge the Deputy’s ongoing advocacy on behalf of sporting organisations in his constituency. We expect to open the sports facilities fund, which is for clubs up to a maximum of €200,000, next spring with announcements next autumn. It normally runs every two years. We have only ever run two iterations of the large-scale sports infrastructure fund, the first in 2019 and the more recent at the end of 2024. The plan is to reopen that in a shorter timeframe for the third round but it should be borne in mind the last one was a five-year gap. We would like to pull that back but that will be dependent on being able to get capital funding. We are currently engaged in the national development plan review for the next five years and that will be central to the decision on the fund. Our focus now is on those who did receive funding last autumn and working with them to make sure they get on with the project. We see drawdown by the 2019 applicants too and we are making sure all those projects proceed. I know it is something in which the Deputy takes a very big interest in his constituency and I look forward to continuing to work with him on that.