Departmental Reviews
6. Deputy Noel McCarthy asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 270 of 18 February 2025, to provide an update on his Department’s consideration of the Funds Sector 2030 report recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28158/25]
I thank Deputy McCarthy. The parliamentary question he refers to deals with the funds review and recommendations on the taxation of funds and policies. My predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Chambers, published the Funds Sector 2030 review, which was an important and wide-ranging piece of work. The programme for Government committed to progressing and publishing an implementation plan for consideration in budget 2026 because what we now know is that new technologies, the use of phones in particular, is offering retail investors easier access to investments at lower cost.
I have heard the feedback about the need for modernisation of the existing taxation regime, and I acknowledge the complexities in the current regime for an average investor. There is a possibility that, due to the changes happening in technology, younger citizens of our country will find it easier to make investment decisions about their own futures, which will help with their own economic futures. We need to take a step back and assess whether we have the right taxation regime in place and whether the regulatory environment around it and, in particular, the way we implement that regime, are clear enough.
We are going to consider all of this. It is likely that because there are so many recommendations within the Funds Review 30 report that the delivery may have to take place over many different Finance Bills and budgets. I recognise the growing importance of the funds sector as an employer within our economy and I recognise that the products it has available are being considered by more and more citizens. We need to look at how we support that.
I thank the Minister for his response. I believe the funds sector review to be an important contribution to the continued success of the asset management and investment fund sector in Ireland. According to the Central Bank, approximately €162 billion was held in deposit at the end of March 2025, earning relatively little for the Irish taxpayer. Recent reports have highlighted that Irish investors are increasingly turning to foreign banks in search of higher returns and more favourable tax treatment. At the same time, there is a wide range of Irish-based funds available, but the current tax regime is reportedly discouraging investment. In this context, I am given to understand there are potential economic implications for the domestic funds sector. Will the Minister provide a clear timeframe for the implementation of the recommendations set out in the Funds Sector 2030 report?
My aim is that we will be able to do this over multiple budgets and try to make progress on these matters. As the Deputy stated, this is a part of our economy that is growing. There is a case for it growing faster within the EU overall. The sector raised multiple issues over a few years that we considered in a more careful and systemic way in the Funds Review 2030, which the Deputy just acknowledged. There are 42 recommendations within the review and some of them could be quite costly. Few of them are simple. We need to look at how, over a number of budgets, we can make progress on them.
It is very encouraging to hear Deputies raise the sector today, as it is now employing people in many constituencies across the country. This is a considerable change and one of the reasons I will consider the points raised by the Deputy.
I compliment the Minister and his Department on the work they have done so far. I understand it is a complex case and will take multiple budgets to iron out.
I do not have too much more to add what the Deputy said. There is a European background to this. There is so much in savings in Ireland and Europe more widely and we need to look at how we can use those savings in a way that helps to invest in our future and fund the big changes we need. The funds sector has a role to play in that. For so long, the way in which many of us saved was to put our money in a bank account or post office account or, as Deputy Gogarty referenced a few moments ago, we used it to buy a home or other property. These were understandable decisions. However, if we compare the way we save and invest to other parts of Europe, we can see that they make investment decisions. They invest in equities, stocks and companies, all of which helps companies to grow and employ more people. That link is something we need to do better on in Ireland and Europe.
Tax Code
7. Deputy Pa Daly asked the Minister for Finance if he has considered tax policy measures to reduce the cost of electricity relative to fossil fuels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28216/25]
As the Minister knows, households are paying a staggering €350, or 30%, more than the European average on their energy bills.
During the election last November, the Government claimed it was going to cut energy costs to bring relief to households in a cost-of-living crisis. Instead, it is going to rip away supports. The Minister himself said that energy payments could not become the norm. Does he believe that Ireland's extortionate energy costs are normal? That is my first question to him.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. As I said in response to questions from his colleague, I, and everybody in this Government, is well aware of what higher energy costs mean for all sectors of our society. The electricity and gas retail markets in Ireland operate within a regulatory regime that comes from within Europe. These markets are commercial and liberalised. They aim to be competitive and they are overseen by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities. At the moment, the Government is considering, insofar as we can, regulatory decisions that could add to the cost of energy within our country.
Regarding taxation, households are currently exempt from the electricity tax while businesses per €1 per unit or megawatt hour for business and non-business use. In addition to the relief for electricity for household use, there is also a relief from taxation for electricity generated from renewable sources. In most cases, this is claimed at source by the supplier. This is intended to accelerate the decarbonisation of our grid and bring down the price of electricity for the consumer. Recently, the Government approved an extension of the 9% VAT rate currently applied to gas and electricity until 31 October 2025 at a cost of €85 million. The programme for Government is clear in recognising that we will consider and then take further decisions in this area to see what we can do to deal with the cost of energy. However, I need to caution against using money we might not have available in the future to pay for measures our country will see as becoming permanent. To many, this is a tough argument to make but it is one that is important to make at the moment.
During the winter in particular, I am contacted in the constituency office by people who feel that the situation is out of control. These are people who are paying their children's allowance against their rent and are forced to chose between heating, eating and paying their mortgage. The transition to renewables, which the Government is pushing, should not mean people are paying extortionate energy bills. The Government's approach, which the Minister has referred to as accelerating decarbonisation, places a disproportionate share of the burden for transition on households through the PSO levy. Rather than trying to bring the price of electricity down, the Government is continuing to push prices upwards by adding more costs. In other countries, like Germany, progressive general taxation is used to reduce the cost of electricity alongside efforts to redistribute the PSO levy fairly by making the larger energy users, such as data centres, pay a fair share. That could make a real difference to ordinary people. The Minister said that the Government's approach would accelerate the decarbonisation. I do not believe that is the case. It is unlikely because, for people on low incomes, it is a double punishment. It is not a just transition.
Am I hearing the sands shifting in Sinn Féin's policy on climate again? The Deputy refers to the Government pushing renewables. Does he not think renewables should be playing a larger role in our energy sector? I would appreciate in the exchange we have if he could clarify that issue. I accept that the cost of energy and the way in which our energy market is structured are causing issues and costs for households and businesses. We are looking at regulatory decisions to see if we can change it in any way. Overall, however, the decarbonisation of our energy sector is one of the biggest prospects we have to try to reduce our carbon emissions and give us a greener, healthier and, in the very long run, a more competitive Ireland. What we need to do, and will do, is look at measures that can help with that transition, but I do not believe it is responsible to spend money we may not have in the future.
Of course we should be pushing towards renewable energy but it is the way that the PSO levy is disproportionately put on low- and middle-income earners that is the problem. It is unfair and unlikely to accelerate decarbonisation in the households we go to where they have solid fuel at the front of their houses and are reliant on it.
Regarding electricity, the additional costs on household bills should instead be placed on the larger emitters. I do not see how the Minister can possibly disagree with that. Regarding gas and home heating oil, I refer to halting the carbon tax increases and reversing the past two years of carbon taxes. The Minister believes these taxes will accelerate decarbonisation. I believe they will not with ordinary poorer people who are reliant on solid fuels.
I am asking the Government to address energy affordability by reviewing the way it is tackling it, including the PSO levy and the network charges. I hope that will have the support of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, if they turn up, the regional Independents, if they continue to support the Government.
All the Deputies on the Government benches here today visit homes that use solid fuels. We all represent people in homes that are struggling with the higher cost of energy and who know the cost of living is high. We understand that as well.
Can they afford to change to renewables?
What we are aiming to do is display a greater degree of honesty to them than Deputy Daly is. Is it Sinn Féin policy now - I am really struggling to understand this - that it wants a refund of the last two years of the carbon tax increases? Is that its policy?
We believe there should not be any more carbon taxes on the people. The Minister is naive if he thinks those people-----
These are questions, not a debate. Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.
They cannot afford to push to renewable energy.
People will be getting more and more confused by the Sinn Féin policy here today. The Deputy is saying there should not be any more carbon taxes and there should be a refund of what happened in the past while at the same time Sinn Féin Deputies come to the House every day of the week and want more retrofitting, more cycleways and more measures to help with fuel poverty.
Go raibh maith agat, a Aire. Tá d'am caite.
The changes we make in carbon tax help pay for that.
Does the Minister think the larger users are paying their fair share?
Can we just have one person talking at a time, one person standing at a time and keep to our time? That would be fantastic. Tá dhá cheist le tógail le chéile in ainm an Teachta Emer Currie.
Tax Reliefs
8. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Finance if in cases where buildings are provided for childcare as a condition for planning permission for residential developments, a mechanism could be found through the tax system to help lower the cost of fitting out such buildings, given that cost is proving to be a major impediment, particularly for community childcare providers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28066/25]
73. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Finance his views on the way in which the tax system through, for example, tax relief could help increase the number of childcare places in communities, such as those in west Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28065/25]
I am not sure if the Minister is aware but we have planning guidelines from 2001 where for every 75 dwellings that are built, 20 childcare places are also to be provided. If it was happening, I do not think we would have the problems we have regarding childcare. Sometimes it works. I am sure the Minister has seen that in his own constituency. However, sometimes the builders are exempt or facilities are built but are never opened. I am looking for some realistic and affordable supports for the likes of community crèches and smaller crèches to make that happen.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 73 together.
Deputy Daly just referred to the regional Independents turning up. I just want to refer to how there is not a single member of the Opposition present despite its focus on speaking rights and the operation of the Dáil.
Regarding the important issue that has been raised by Deputy Currie, I appreciate its importance. Without the increase in the supply of childcare places, the efforts we have made as regards affordability have not had the effect we want. There is little point in making something more affordable if the places are not there to allow homes and households to avail of them.
The Deputy will be aware of the work the Department of Children, Disability and Equality is doing on this and the important work that the Minister, Deputy Foley, is doing to try to support the ongoing development and resourcing of core funding. Her Department has a programme in place - the building blocks extension grant scheme - under which she has announced a further €25 million to deliver an additional 1,500 early learning and childcare places for one-to-three-year-olds across our country.
I understand that 49 community and privately operated services have been now shortlisted for that funding. It may be of interest to Deputy Currie, given the very important matters she has raised, that employers have access to an accelerated capital allowance scheme that includes, for example, childcare services. This scheme provides for 100% capital allowances in the first year in respect of expenditure incurred on qualifying equipment and for an accelerated industrial buildings annual allowance and qualifying expenditure of 15% per annum for six years and 10% in the seventh year. We also allow, subject to certain criteria, income of up to €15,000 being exempt from income tax and USC.
At the heart of these questions lies an opportunity to link the provision of childcare places with the provision of new housing. Childcare needs a big idea that can deliver capacity at scale and value for money. I am not interested in the big chains that can do that already but in public supply and in supporting community crèches and the providers, primarily women, who have been running our smaller, independent, local facilities for years and struggling to do so. The Government is delivering new housing but can we also ensure that we are delivering childcare places in tandem with that? The mechanism that we currently have - the childcare facilities guidelines for local authorities from 2001 - is not working effectively. For every 75 dwellings, 20 childcare places are supposed to be provided. Sometimes, new crèche buildings are included in planning, are built and are opened but sometimes they are not.
I thank the Minister for the information on the capital supports but this forms part of a bigger overhaul of the planning guidelines to ensure that those crèches are not sitting empty, like they are in my constituency, that their use is not being changed and that we see more providers being able to operate in our local communities.
I will deal with the different issues that have been raised. I take on board the overall point that the Deputy is making regarding the efforts that we have to put in place to fund supply. That is being done in two different ways at the moment. At local authority level, the guidelines for planning authorities in respect of childcare facilities aim to make clear the minimum number of childcare places that should be provided for a certain number of dwellings that may be available in a new community or on a new site that is being developed. The planning dimension of this is getting clearer and clearer in terms of laying out our expectations regarding what should be built. From a core funding point of view, what we are aiming to do now is to work with the childcare sector to put in place the funding to try to help with the hiring and retention of staff. I understand that for the 2025 to 2026 programme, a further €45 million has been allocated, resulting in a combined core funding allocation of €390 million. I hope this, along with the implementation of the third employment regulation order, which is all about having the right levels of pay and the right standards within the sector, will lead to improvements in recruitment and retention. Regarding the buildings themselves, we have in place a grant scheme that is overseen by the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, Deputy Foley, the aim of which is to deliver an additional 1,500 places.
I thank Deputy Currie for raising this. It is an important issue in west Dublin, including Dublin West, and we will continue to do all we can on it.
There is a lot of good in the programme for Government. It says that the Government will review these guidelines. It also commits to reviewing core funding and to the provision of public supply. I am here today to say that there are opportunities to combine those and come up with a big vision for the delivery of childcare in our communities. At the moment, there are exemptions to the rule on providing 20 childcare places for every 75 new dwellings. For example, one-bedroom apartments are exempt. Also, if developers say that there is a crèche nearby, then they do not necessarily have to include a crèche in their development even though it could comprise more than 75 dwellings. When the facilities are built, they are only shell and core and so may not be affordable for childcare providers.
We need to do what we said we would do in the programme for Government and pull on every lever to actually make delivery happen. We have to review and overhaul the guidelines but we also have to ensure that, when facilities are built, the places then follow.
I will raise these issues with the Minister, Deputy Foley, but I know she is aware of them already. I will discuss with her the measures we can put in place now to further increase the supply of new homes and the new childcare places that accompany those new homes. We have measures in place now with regard to helping with the recruitment and retention of staff and with the provision of childcare facilities within places of employment. We also have schemes available to help with capital costs to encourage the private sector to provide more childcare places.
As Deputy Currie has said, we need to look at the role the State itself can play in more actively supporting the sector in terms of the provision of places. The progress we have tried to make in the affordability of childcare has essential social benefits in delivering equality within the workplace and within the home, which is important. There are also important additional economic reasons for doing so. At a time of full employment, it becomes even more important to look at how we can help those living in and contributing to our country to return to the workplace, and childcare is an essential way in which we will do that. We have an array of different measures in place that are making a difference but I will work with the Minister, Deputy Foley, on this. I know she will be approaching me on these issues to see what further progress we can make.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter.
Housing Schemes
9. Deputy William Aird asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider extending the help to buy scheme to first-time buyers purchasing second-hand homes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28039/25]
20. Deputy James O'Connor asked the Minister for Finance if his Department will revise the help to buy scheme to include those who purchased houses that were built in the past two years but were previously occupied and the original occupants have paid the moneys back to Revenue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28175/25]
Will the Minister consider extending the help to buy scheme to include first-time buyers purchasing second-hand homes? I ask this question on behalf of many first-time buyers across the country, including young families, single professionals and couples, who dream of owning a home but find themselves restricted by the current scope of the help to buy scheme. The current initiative provides crucial support to first-time buyers purchasing newly built homes but it reflects a narrow view of the housing market.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 20 together.
The primary aim of the help to buy scheme is to encourage additional supply of new houses by supporting demand. It also assists first-time purchasers with the deposit they need to buy or build a new home. The scheme provides a refund of income tax and deposit interest retention tax paid in Ireland over the previous four years, subject to the limits outlined in the legislation. Based on the latest available data from 31 March, it has supported almost 55,000 individuals or couples to buy their own home. In addition to the conditions laid down in the scheme, including that the property be occupied as the sole or main residence of a first-time purchaser, the scheme defines a qualifying residence.
The legislation is very specific as to the definition of a qualifying residence. It must be a new building that was not at any time used or suitable for use as a dwelling. If the building was non-residential but has been converted for residential use, it may qualify for the help to buy scheme. Renovation or refurbishment of old houses to either upgrade or reinstate them for habitation does not qualify for the scheme.
Regarding second-hand properties generally, an increase in the supply of new housing remains a crucial aim of the Government. As I mentioned, the help to buy scheme is specifically designed to encourage an increase in demand for affordable new-build homes to encourage the construction of an additional supply of such properties. The scheme includes a claw-back provision where the minimum occupation period of five years is not met.
It should, of course, be borne in mind that the Government has put in place many other measures in addition to the help to buy scheme to support first-time buyers. They include the first home scheme and the local authority affordable purchase scheme. The programme for Government commits to the retention and revision of the help to buy scheme. As the Deputy will appreciate, any revision to the scheme would have to be considered as part of the annual budget and Finance Bill process and take into account the effective operation of the scheme and the impact any changes could have on the broader housing market.
That cuts to the core of the point I made in response to an earlier question. I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. The big concern I have, and I would appreciate his views on this, is that if the scheme were to be made available to homes that have already been built, it could run the risk of making those homes more expensive and, in turn, less affordable. I do not want to see that happen. I welcome the Deputy's views on this. The help to buy scheme plays a very important role, and I am committed to its retention, but I want to ensure that by having it available, it not only helps with a deposit but also helps with new homes being built.
Second-hand homes could be a more viable option for some first-time buyers but they are then excluded from financial assistance. An extension to the help to buy scheme to include buyers of second-hand homes would acknowledge the reality of our housing market. An extension would widen access, especially in rural and established urban areas where new builds are limited or priced outside of the thresholds. Second-hand homes may offer more affordability, more location choices and faster availability. Supporting buyers of second-hand homes would ease the pressure on the new-build sector, increase buyer choice and contribute to a more balanced housing market. We must ensure housing supports for all first-time buyers, regardless of the type of home they purchase. For many, the help to buy scheme represents the difference between aspiration and reality, and between renting indefinitely and securing a home to call their own. I urge the Minister to extend the scheme to second-hand homes to reflect the reality of the housing market in our towns, cities and rural areas, promote financial fairness and support first-time buyers in every way possible.
The Deputy is raising the strong views of his constituents on this issue. One of the many points of questions like this is for the Deputy to raise issues his constituents want him to raise and for me to do my best to explain why we are doing or not doing what he wants. As I said, the concern I have is that in addition to the difficulties we have with building more homes, we need to ensure that as we build more homes, they are built in a way that is affordable. My considered analysis of this scheme is that any change that would make it available to homes that are already built could have a real risk of adding to house price inflation in our country, given how many second-hand homes are bought every year. I thank the Deputy for raising the issue and I will take on board what he said but I want to do him the courtesy of giving him my view on the issue at the moment.
Other improvements to the help to buy scheme I urge the Minister to consider are to adjust the eligibility criteria and thresholds to reflect current house prices and inflation and to introduce a system that would offer higher support for lower income applicants or buyers in high-cost areas. That would make the scheme more equitable.
I have given the view on the scheme as clearly as I can. I completely understand where the Deputy is coming from and why he is raising the issue. As I said, it is really important that any changes we make at a time in which supply is still not increasing at the speed we want do not add to inflationary difficulties. I will take on board what he said.
Tax Yield
10. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Finance the total amount by which he intends to increase the carbon tax, by category, in each year until 2030. [28015/25]
Will the Minister outline the amount by which he intends to increase the carbon tax during the course of the Government's term, setting out clearly what that will mean for families and workers facing a cost-of-living crisis?
The Finance Act 2020 legislated for annual increases in the carbon tax rate of €7.50 until 2029, along with a final increment of €6.50, bringing the rate to €100 per tonne of carbon dioxide in 2030, with current rates based on charging €63.50 per tonne of CO2 emissions. Under the programme for Government, it has been agreed to continue with the planned carbon tax increases, which align with recommendations from the Climate Change Advisory Council, and to continue to use the additional revenues to fund social welfare measures, agri-environmental schemes and retrofitting. This approach encourages a shift away from fossil fuels and ensures those who are most vulnerable receive targeted support, making the transition to a sustainable future fair and equitable.
There are three separate legislative frameworks within tax law to apply the carbon taxation regime across liquid fuels, natural gas and solid fuels, namely, the carbon component of mineral oil tax, MOT, the natural gas carbon tax and the solid fuel carbon tax. The carbon components of MOT on petrol and auto-diesel are legislated to increase each October up to and including 2029. The MOT rates for other liable fuels such as heating kerosene and marked gas oil, along with the natural gas carbon tax and the solid fuel carbon tax rates, will increase annually in May up to and including 2030 to allow for the winter heating season.
The mineral oil tax rate increases up to the final year will annually add 1.7 cent to a litre of petrol, and approximately 2 cent to a litre of diesel, heating kerosene and marked gas oil or farm diesel. The natural gas carbon tax rate increases up to 2029 will add just under €15 each year to the average household natural gas bill, based on annual usage of 11,000 kWh. The annual solid fuel carbon tax increases up to 2029 will add 80 cent to a 40 kg bag of coal.
The carbon tax is unique. There is nowhere else we can point to in the current budget where we can say with certainty, "This is what the Government plans to do". We cannot tell pensioners where their pension will be in five years' time but we can tell them by how much precisely Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and those champions of rural Ireland, the Healy-Raes et al., are going to increase the cost of heating their home. We cannot tell motorists how much money will be given to fund the roads network or precisely how much will go to improving transport connectivity, but we can tell them exactly how much money will be added to the cost of driving to work. The worst is that none of this actually works. The money is not ring-fenced, despite what the Government protests. This is a revenue-collecting measure that disproportionately affects working-class, poorer and rural households. Does the Minister accept and appreciate just how bizarre this situation is? Will he finally see sense and engage constructively in order that we can tackle environmental challenges without fleecing ordinary workers and families?
This is a revenue-collecting measure that pays for public services and improvements in those things that can make a difference to a greener future for Ireland.
Annual increases in carbon tax have been ring-fenced to ensure that this money is used to fund the development of better infrastructure across our country, help with the cost of fuel poverty and fund things we know our country needs to become greener and healthier. Budget by budget, I have made changes in social welfare payments to ensure that those on the lowest income levels are not affected the most by changes in carbon tax.
I really would appreciate a bit of honesty from the Government. It is not true to say that the carbon tax is ring-fenced. The Comptroller and Auditor General confirmed that he could account for about 61% of it and be assured that it was going towards environmental measures. As with all Government decisions, taxes are collected and decisions are made as to how they are spent, so to say that we need the carbon tax to pay for environmental schemes probably sets out how committed the Government is to those environmental schemes in the first place. The Minister can talk about mitigating measures and alleviating measures that are in place but carbon tax will not do anything for the environment. It will just make the lives of my neighbours - families in rural communities who have no choice but to use their cars every day to drop their children to school or to go to work and who have no choice but to use the home heating system in their home - harder. I do not know why the collective that makes up the Government - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and now the Rural Independent Group - simply cannot understand and appreciate that.
I was careful in my answer. I said that the increases in carbon taxes since I introduced this measure in the Finance Act 2020 have been ring-fenced. Before I put in place the increases to which we are referring, there had been a base carbon tax, which was the foundation for all of this and the revenue from which goes to pay for public services. The Deputy stated that it said something about my motives that we are using these increases in carbon tax to pay for measures that can help with the greening of our economy and country. Likewise, his lack of commitment to these carbon tax changes raises questions about how he would pay for these measures. I understand they have an effect and that there are many who find it hard to pay these taxes. That is why we put in place the social measures to which I referred but if we want a greener future, we must find some way to pay for it.
Fiscal Policy
11. Deputy Grace Boland asked the Minister for Finance how the Future Ireland Fund is being used and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27604/25]
The Future Ireland Fund is a very important planning instrument for the future of the economy, particularly in light of shocks we know are coming down the track. Will the Minister outline how the Future Ireland Fund and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund are being used and their status at this stage?
The Future Ireland Fund and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund were established in 2024 following the passage of the Future Ireland Fund and Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund Act through the Oireachtas. The majority of the Act commenced on 30 July 2024. The funds seek to future-proof the public finances and deal with future challenges such as our country growing older, decarbonisation and the use of new technologies.
As the Future Ireland Fund is a long-term savings fund, drawdowns from the fund will only begin from 2041 onwards. The purpose of Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund is to support the economy in times of exceptional need and support the funding of designated environmental projects. Funding can be drawn down from 2026. The drawing down of this fund is managed by the Department of public expenditure.
Both funds are to be capitalised by annual transfers from the Exchequer - 0.8% of GDP per annum from 2024 onwards in the case of the Future Ireland Fund and €2 billion per annum from 2025 onwards in the case of the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund. Over €10 billion has already been transferred to the funds in 2024. This year's transfer to the funds was announced during budget 2025. By the end of this year, the Future Ireland Fund will hold approximately €12.5 billion and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund will have €4 billion - a total of €16.5 billion.
It is very important to acknowledge the importance of these funds. The Minister mentioned demographic change. We know a crisis is coming in terms of the shift from those who are working to those who are retired and how the working population here will have to support those people. I want to put on record my support for and acknowledgement of the importance of these funds and the fact that they will be here in 16 or 17 years time to deal with whatever difficulties the economy might face at that point.
I note the National Reserve Fund transferred to the Future Ireland Fund last year. The National Treasury Management Agency is responsible for the management of these funds. How are they managed? How close an eye is kept on them on a day-to-day basis by the Department? Can the Minister say anything about where those funds are or how he anticipates they will develop over the next 16 to 17 years?
The day-to-day management of the funds is done by the National Treasury Management Agency. The NTMA is preparing long-term investment strategies for both funds that will then be subject to consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. These strategies are being reviewed and will then be signed off on by the two Ministers. The current investment strategies are being managed in a low-risk way. The funds are only invested in highly rated liquid securities with a low level of inherent risk such as the bonds of countries, as we develop these strategies.
I appreciate that. To what extent does the Department keep an eye on the appropriateness of those financial vehicles in terms of any human rights element? Is this a consideration?
I would expect those kinds of issues to be considered carefully by those involved in investing this money, which we are now building up. We had a debate last night on this topic in the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach where I said that I am reluctant to put in place lots of legislation and restrictions regarding how decisions are made by the NTMA because it does a really good job on our behalf in managing the various funds we already have in place. Instead, officials in my Department are responsible for engaging with the NTMA on strategic and operational matters and do so regularly. My Secretary General sits on the board of the NTMA along with the Secretary General from the Department of public expenditure. We work with the NTMA on those two levels. To answer the Deputy's question about how we deal with investment overall, it is through authorising the long-term strategy and that process is under way.
12. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Finance to report on the progress of ensuring access to cash and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28047/25]
As the Minister is aware, cash is increasingly something many people do not use. One will often hear people say they do not carry cash at all but rely on credit cards and banking apps to make the payments they need to make. While that is very progressive in lots of ways, will the Minister tell us what he is doing to ensure cash remains available for those who need and want to use it?
The Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Act 2025 is the result of a recommendation in the Department of Finance’s 2022 review of retail banking. The objectives of the Act are to ensure sufficient and effective access to cash in the State; to put in place a framework to manage future changes to the cash infrastructure in a fair, orderly, equitable and transparent manner; and to bring cash-in-transit providers, CITs, and independent ATM deployers within the regulatory perimeter of the Central Bank of Ireland.
The legislation will do so by allowing the Minister for Finance to prescribe in regulations access-to-cash criteria with regard to December 2022 levels initially, taking account of the exits of Ulster Bank and KBC. The regions used will be the eight regions of our country as defined by Eurostat.
The Act will require ATM deployers to be registered with the Central Bank of Ireland and provides the Central Bank with regulation-making powers relating to matters such as reporting requirements, service and other matters such as denomination stocking. The Act was signed into law only in May; work will now begin to commence the legislation. I expect the key regulations to be completed in the third quarter of this year.
While I am very much aware of the changing attitudes as regards the use of cash, I understand that for many people in our country using cash is still the main way they want to conduct payments. This speaks to an issue of inclusion within our financial system. I do not see it at all as being a technical matter; I see it as really important. If you find out you are not able to pay a bill or not able to use your money to make important transactions, it just adds to a feeling of not being part of our financial system. I do not want to see that happen.
I acknowledge that the Government takes on board this issue. Exactly as the Minister says, it is an inclusion issue, particularly for people who might not be tech savvy or might even have bad Internet coverage. The lack of access to cash can be a real stumbling block for them in accessing financial services and paying bills. I therefore appreciate that there is a governmental and legislative acknowledgment of the importance of cash. Some choose to use the alternative technological solutions, and that is great, but we must continue to make cash available to people.
Small businesses tell me that sometimes dealing in cash with banks can increase their banking charges and costs. Is there any intention to impress upon the banks the need for them not to penalise businesses and individuals for choosing to use cash over electronic means of funds transfers?
I will look at that issue. I am struck, despite what I said, by the number of premises I now walk into, like shops and cafés, that say "card only". I can understand completely the benefits they get in that regard. There are benefits to the economy overall as well in being able to record transactions and look at how tax is collected. However, I go back to the point I agreed on a moment ago. Not being able to use cash to access a service is something I am concerned about. I want to consider it further, and in my next round of engagement with our banks I will certainly raise with them that issue and the feeling that, as the Deputy said, small businesses may feel in some way penalised.
I appreciate the Minister's perspective and his commitment to that. Beyond the banking sector, there are businesses that will sometimes try to dictate to their customers how they will effect payment for a service or a good. Some people will say not just that they want a card payment but that it must be through a particular method - PayPal or whatever it might be. Does the Minister perhaps see a role in regulatory terms for the Government to say to businesses that they may not do that and that they must facilitate payment by multiple means, or at least more than one means, in circumstances where there could be a concern that dictating that payment must be made through a particular means would seriously restrict some people's ability to access that good or service?
I would be reluctant to give that commitment to the Deputy here today because I would need to consider whether that would have any unintended consequences regarding policies we have on the legal tender of cash. That is now being developed within the European Union. As I said to the Deputy, I will look at the matter. I want to ensure that citizens do not in any way feel excluded from our financial system. I cannot help but notice the growing number of shops and cafés I walk into that say "card only". That is not at all a problem for the Deputy or me, but there are some within our society for whom that can be a problem and, as I said, I do not want to see that happen.
Job Creation
13. Deputy Peter Roche asked the Minister for Finance the way in which he and his Department intend to help ensure that employment growth continues, given the increased global uncertainty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28024/25]
21. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Finance the measures being taken in his Department's annual progress report on the slowdown on job creation nationally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27804/25]
I appreciate the Minister coming into the Chamber to deal with the responses to some of the genuine concerns that people have about the finances. I ask the Minister where he and his Department intend to ensure that employment growth continues, given the global uncertainty.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 21 together.
It is always a privilege to be here as regularly as I am to answer the important questions Deputies put to me and to respond to the Dáil. I want to highlight where we are from a jobs point of view in Ireland. It is a really positive development in our economy overall. Total employment in the last year alone went up by 90,000 people, with the total number of people at work in our country now exceeding 2.8 million. The unemployment rate now stands at 4%, while the number of women at work is at a record high. The number of young people at work within our economy is at a very high level as well. I am sure the Deputy will remember - I certainly do - other times when persistently high levels of unemployment in Ireland were an issue that government after government really struggled to make progress on. It was the subject of much debate, research and analysis, why unemployment was so high in Ireland and why we could not get it down, with all the social misery that was then caused by that. While I know there is still much that we need to improve on in our country, to see so many people at work is so important. Behind every one of those 2.8 million people is the dignity of being work, the reward you get from it and then the obvious contribution to your own living standards.
As to where we are and what that means for the global environment we are in, that is the main challenge the Government faces economically. Regrettably, the background that helped Ireland create that level of employment for those who live in our country was a consensus as regards the rules of global trade and global taxation, a belief that if we integrate with one another through trade, that can deliver mutually beneficial gains for economies by getting more people at work. The House will be well aware that that is now being contested and that President Trump is taking a very different view with regard to trade.
What we are now trying to do is, first, through the European Union, negotiate with the United States to see if we can get a different outcome and an agreement on this and, second, within our own economy, look at the measures we can take that will sustain these high levels of employment. I point to the work the Minister, Deputy Chambers, is now doing. He will be in here shortly after me to discuss the review of the national development plan. I point to the work the Minister, Deputy Burke, is doing on the competitiveness of our economy. That is hugely important. I recognise the work he is putting in, particularly in support of smaller businesses. Then there is the work the Minister, Deputy Lawless, is doing on higher and further education and how we can have the right level of skills within our economy and look to develop and to change that as technology begins to change our economies overall.
This high level of employment is a really precious gain in our economy overall. We have to look at the contribution that all agencies of our State can make to contribute to it. I see our colleague here, the Minister of State, Deputy Moran, who will talk about the Office of Public Works. That is an example of a State agency that plays a really important role in skill development within our economy and then direct employment. We need to look at all of this now when the global environment is beginning to change so much.
I thank the Minister for a comprehensive response. No matter where you come from, there are, right around the island of Ireland, representatives like me who are concerned about the threat to any job, particularly in the more dispersed rural villages.
Everything the Minister for Finance can do would be much appreciated and is much needed. None of us was aware of what the volatile President Trump was about to do and the impact it would have on our economy. The Minister stated that there are 2.8 million people in employment and that the unemployment rate is 4%. That is resounding testament to how things are going in this country. I applaud the Minister for his continued and relentless efforts in that regard.
We need to look at all policies available to the Government in order to see how to make more progress in this area. Having been out and about with the Deputy a number of months ago in many of the towns in the constituency he represents, I am aware of the variety of employers located there. Due to the fact that we now have such a diverse set of employers in Ireland, we need to take a step back and identify the broad things we can do to help them all. I am convinced that these continue to be: having a stable economy in which people have confidence and in which we can continue to invest; avoid significant cutbacks in or changes to how we spend the country's money; and looking at particular measures that will help the growth of various sectors, from tourism right through to the big employers that make such a difference to our country and that we are going to have to work hard to support.
In east Galway, we are fortunate to have Dexcom. The company is at an advanced stage with its development in Athenry. It plans to employ many people there, which is really welcome. Most of us understand that some companies are better insulated against the proposed tariffs than others. I am heartened to hear the Minister's plans to safeguard employment and the measures he has taken or is considering to further ensure there is no threat to those in employment.
I agree with the Deputy. As he stated, this is an important achievement that the Government has to try to sustain. The Ireland in which I began my education did not have this level of employment. There is much we know we need to do better on and every TD on the Government benches is aware of the difficulties that we face and that we committed to trying to deal with. At the same time, having so many people at work is not only good for those in the jobs, it also creates the resources we need. Those resources, in turn, allow us to invest and spend. That is why the Government has number of decisions ahead of it. In that context, I refer to the work the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Chambers is doing in respect of the national development plan, the work of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Burke, and the important work of the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Lawless.
Ethics in Public Office
84. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform if he will provide an update on reform of the ethics in public office legislation, given that the review of the statutory framework was completed in December 2022; the reason for the delay in publishing the heads of a Bill; if he expects this Bill to be introduced this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28132/25]
132. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for an update on the progress of revised ethics legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28125/25]
136. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 99 of 13 February 2025, for an update on the plans to review and strengthen the ethics in public office legislation, following the completion of the review of the statutory framework in December 2022; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27769/25]
An update on the ethics in public office legislation was promised in the programme for Government in 2020. It never happened. The Minister's Department concluded its review in December 2022. We were promised heads of a Bill but have never seen them. It is now two and a half years later. When will those heads of Bill be published?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 84, 132 and 136 together.
I thank the Deputy and the other Deputies who have also raised this matter. As Deputy O'Callaghan will be aware, we are committed in the programme for Government to updating the ethics in public office legislation. This follows a wide-ranging review of the legislative framework for ethics in public life that my Department undertook during the term of the previous Government, the report and findings of which were published in February 2023.
The report's recommendations include that the legislative framework for ethics should be underpinned by a set of integrity principles, that disclosure requirements should be strengthened to improve transparency and that consideration should be given to whether the regime should encompass more officeholders. The report also recommends a strengthening of the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. Certain more recent recommendations around ethics will also need to be considered in the context of the reform agenda.
The House will understand that this is a complex area that requires consideration before a scheme is brought forward. There are broader operational and policy considerations I want to explore and get right as the new Minister in the Department. I am conscious that this represents an opportunity to make real, meaningful and positive change to our current regime.
I want to ensure that happens in a coherent way from a policy perspective and that it is also user-friendly from an operational perspective. I am examining all the outstanding policy issues, including those I have outlined, and I am engaging with officials to determine the most appropriate way forward to meet the commitment in the programme for Government. My ultimate goal is to create a fit-for-purpose and easy to understand ethical framework that contributes to the quality, efficacy and transparency of our system and positively builds on the strength of our existing framework.
I thank the Minister for his reply but we are going backwards here. The review was concluded by his Department well over two years ago. We should have seen a heads of Bill at this stage. His predecessor, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, who I know the Minister works closely with, told this House a year ago that "we are nearly done in respect of the drafting of the heads of the Bill and I hope to be in a position to bring that to Government shortly.". A year ago, the Minister's predecessor was saying this work was almost finished and was almost ready to go to Government. The Minister is now saying two years after the review done by his Department and five years after the promise in the previous programme for Government that this would be done, he has more work to do and more consideration to give.
There are issues here that have been going on since 2018. Every single year in its annual report, SIPO highlights it does have the powers that it needs to do its job effectively. Year after year passes without this getting addressed. To give one example, in 2023 it identified 42 public bodies that are outside of its remit because the regulations have not been updated since 2018. This is long overdue. Can the Minister give us a commitment that he will do this urgently?
I have to agree with the previous speaker on this. I looked back to April. This is not a priority. In its 2009 annual report, SIPO "recommends that the Department of Finance should draft new legislation to be based on best practice for dealing with conflicts of interests and ... consolidate". Fast forward to the 2021 annual report, SIPO states "For a number of years, the Commission has called for a comprehensive review of the existing ethics framework...in annual reports" and so on. It says it over and over.
It is not good enough for the Minister to come in today and say it is complex and he is still looking at it. The review was completed more than two years ago. It took years to get the review. I am quoting from an annual report from 2009. It is now 2025. It is more than two years after the departmental review and the Minister has no heads of Bill for us, no date or no anything. There is an absolute failure to recognise what SIPO is telling us in terms of governance, oversight and its lack of power to act.
I thank both of the Deputies. I am in the Department a number of months and my commitment is to bring forward a general scheme but I want to make sure that, as I am advancing that, I examine the long history to this which has been referenced. The history has been too long. Deputy Connolly referenced 2009 and Deputy O'Callaghan referenced other time points. I want to bring forward a general scheme that can be examined by Members to try to strengthen the framework that is there. I am committed to doing that but I have to make sure I construct a scheme which responds to the need for a strengthened body underpinned by integrity principles and improves the transparency, which I have referenced. My commitment is to progress that. Deputy Connolly asked me about this in April and I am committed to working through that and to bringing forward a scheme. When I am in a position to give a specific date on when I can publish it, I will bring that to House. I am currently examining the respective policy considerations and the decision points that have to be made for a scheme and then it will be drafted and published, as is the normal practice.
I thank the Minister. However, I do not understand how his predecessor, the current Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, who is perfectly competent and able, was in a position to tell the Dáil a year ago that the heads of Bill was almost ready to be published and he was hoping to bring it to Government very shortly. How was it possible for Deputy Donohoe to do that a year ago only for the Minister to now come into the House to say there is a whole load of other work that needs to be done?
The review by his Department was concluded more than two years ago. Some of these issues have been going on for years. We have 42 public bodies that are not covered by the ethics legislation because the regulations have not been updated in years. How can the Minister stand over that? How can he stand over 42 public bodies not covered by the ethics legislation? Deputy Chambers is the Minister with responsibility for this. Will he not deal with this urgently and how is it that he is way behind where his colleague, Deputy Donohoe, was a year ago?
I will stick with what SIPO tells us. I will go back to 2019 and to the submission to public consultation on the regulatory impact analysis. It states that SIPO's "mandate includes oversight of the electoral Act". It then goes on to outline some of the challenges for SIPO in this role and the lack of independence of SIPO in terms of budgets, staffing and reporting to the Oireachtas. It states that SIPO does not have its own Vote, unlike in other jurisdictions and that a dedicated Vote would allow it more independence, which is vital, and autonomy. It outlines the "burdensome framework for reporting" and that seven statutory reports are required under the electoral Act alone.
Four of the six members of the SIPO Commission are ex officio with other commitments, which limits the time they have to focus on SIPO. SIPO's secretarial staff also have responsibility for other operations within SIPO's remit. There is a need for a definition of "political purposes" and "third parties". On expenditure limits, there are no limits on expenditure for Seanad elections or referenda, unlike other elections. There are inconsistent disclosure requirements for political parties and so on. It has little power by way of investigation. Local elections are treated differently. That is only a small sample of the inadequacies of the existing legislation. It is the opposite to what democracy needs.
Deputy Connolly listed a broad range of policy areas which have to be considered in the context of a scheme which will be brought forward-----
They were outlined by SIPO in 2019.
-----and that is what we are doing. That is what we will do. I will publish a scheme in light of that. That is what I am committed to doing. The programme for Government is clear on the need to update the ethics in public office legislation and my commitment will be to bring forward a general scheme. When it is ready, I will publish it and it will be for all Members to feed into how we can ensure that it is a strengthened piece of legislation. Obviously, there will be a pre-legislative scrutiny process around that. That is what I am working through at the moment and I am committed to doing that.
Data Centres
85. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for an update on the progress of a State data centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27731/25]
The Government data centre initiative is led by the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO, a division within my Department. It is an action item in the Government’s public service ICT strategy and aims to deliver and centrally support ICT as a shared service rather than have common technical solutions in each public sector body. The Government data centre project will deliver high-quality, energy efficient data centre facilities which are fit for purpose and are capable of efficiently meeting the Government's technology and energy saving requirements, both now and into the future. It will provide access for State bodies' ICT infrastructure to drive efficiency, standardisation, consolidation and the reduction in duplication as well as cost control. It is also an important element of the Government's strategic framework for fostering technology innovation and excellence across the public services in Ireland. That is something we, as a Government, encourage and recognise continually. In fact, the Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and I will tonight do that at the 10th Civil Service Excellence and Innovation Awards.
Following a successful procurement exercise by the OPW in 2022, a preferred bidder was chosen and a contract signed for the construction of the Government data centre in late 2022. The data centre construction project, which is co-funded by the EU's National Resilience and Recovery Programme, started in quarter 1 of 2023 and was successfully completed in early May 2025, earlier this month. The project came in on-budget and on-time. The next phase of the Government data centre programme will be the internal fit out and that will include the procurement and installation of racks and internal networking. That will begin in June and is scheduled to be completed by the end of this year. It is expected that the Government data centre will be operational from 2026 onwards and public service bodies will begin transitioning all their ICT infrastructure and services to the data centre from that point.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. I have a couple of comments. I welcome the fact that the project seems to have worked well. We hear a lot about public sector projects and about the ones that do not work well but this one seems to have come in on time and on budget. It is very positive that the data will be located in Ireland. It is very important that the State has control of its own data because this is an issue for international data centres and jurisdictions.
With regard to policy, I support data centres. We all use our phones every day and they run off services based in data centres. The Government can take a good lead here with respect to renewable energy. That is number one. It should lead out on data centres transitioning to long-term sustainable sources of renewable energy. The CRU's view is that Dublin is constrained. There is a long-term opportunity to distribute data centres around the west of Ireland in particular where there are renewable energy opportunities in the form of offshore, which is not that well developed but it will get there. It distributes economy activity.
I thank my constituency colleague for bringing up data centres and the State data centre. The programme for Government talks about expediting private wire legislation. As Deputy Ó Muirí just said with regard to the decarbonisation of data centres, as we are all aware, 21% of our electricity is being used by data centres. While other Deputies will attack data centres, there are 53,000 jobs indirectly or directly linked to data centres. I am not going to shout at the Minister of State and say they are using this electricity. We could use the expedition of private wire legislation to allow data centres to create their own on-site energy, as Deputy Ó Muirí said. This would then allow the giant companies to create on-site solar panels or, as the Deputy said, run private wires from other renewable projects. It is important that we do this.
The CRU's announcement three months ago was not welcome and was not in line with the programme for Government. I urge the Government to expedite the private wire legislation to allow us to reach our EU climate targets.
I thank Deputy Ó Muirí for raising this matter. I express concern about the remarks reported in the Irish Independent today by the Secretary General of the Department of energy. It is not about a choice between housing and AI. We need to build housing but we also need to prepare for our tech future. This is also, by the way, the same Department that is responsible for the development of renewable energy, particularly offshore, and has continued to fail to meet the targets in this regard. I am really concerned about how this debate is now being presented.
The future is both green and tech. They are not mutually exclusive. The Government needs to reassure the public. The story in today's Irish Independent is deeply concerning if it reflects the views of a senior civil servant. The Secretary General needs to be held to account for the failures of her Department to meet the issues around renewable energy. I agree with Deputy Heneghan that there are new, modern data centres, including Echelon in Arklow, which can generate their own energy.
I thank the Deputies for their comments. The new Government data centre will provide secure but also green operations that will future-proof the reliable delivery of essential digital services. The intention is to operate a hybrid model utilising a Government data centre that combines Government and commercial cloud technology in an optimised way. That is part of the Government's wider digital strategy.
The Government data centre will be a 4 MW facility and obviously, as Deputies have pointed out, all data centres require energy. They are, however, an important part of being able to do business in Ireland and, from a Government perspective, being able to keep all our citizens' information within Ireland and safe. The Government is keen to achieve the decarbonisation of data centres. It has been great to see certain data centres take the lead themselves and not wait for new requirements, for example, using the excess heat from data centres to power public buildings, as South Dublin County Council is doing.
I thank the Minister of State. Decarbonisation is vital. Data centres are with us for the long term. Let us distribute them; they have economic value. It is a good way to distribute economic value to other regions in the country. Those regions may have better access to renewable energy than the Dublin region or Leinster. In the long term, the Government can take a lead on this.
I know the Minister of State has personal know-how in this area. I welcome the Government's work on this. Green jobs, as Deputy Byrne said, are the future. Technology is interlocked with that, whether we like it or not. Some people do not like it but it is a fact of life. Private wire is part of that, as Deputy Heneghan said. Whether we like it or not, we have to move with this.
Yes, and that is something Government is examining in detail. We need to make sure we invest in our digital infrastructure but that we do so in a way that balances our environmental commitments and obligations. We are working very hard to strike the right balance.
Flood Relief Schemes
86. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform the up-to-date position for a flood relief scheme (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27806/25]
The threat of flooding in Ballyvourney and Ballymakeera is well recognised and is hugely stressful for householders facing it. Interim works have advanced, which brings peace of mind to homeowners, especially along the river bank. Will the Minister of State outline the timeframe for advancing the next stages of the major works?
There is a long history of flooding in Ballyvourney and Ballymakeera. The Office of Public Works, working in partnership with Cork County Council, is proactively progressing a preferred option for the viable flood relief scheme in Ballyvourney and Ballymakeera that will protect 90 properties from significant risk of flooding.
The OPW drafted an options report for a proposed flood relief scheme for the town over an extended period. It includes hydrological analysis, hydraulic modelling and flood mapping. The OPW also developed a river option for flooding alleviation and made a recommendation on a preferred option.
The likely environmental impact of the preferred option identified the potential impact on the protected freshwater pearl mussel and the necessity to consider a broad range of options to identify the most appropriate approach to managing flood risk prior to seeking consent. Cork County Council is the lead authority and is developing the scope of works for the engineering and environmental consultant to develop the most appropriate approach. The OPW is actively engaging with the local authority to finalise the consultancy brief.
I acknowledge the interim works taking place until very recently, with diggers only moving off site in the last week or so. They definitely give peace of mind to householders, especially along the river bank. There is now a need to maintain momentum and push on with the major scheme. Work and studies were carried out on a major scheme for the area. Is the OPW starting a new major scheme or will it pick up some of the work done in the earlier studies, for example, on the freshwater pearl mussel, and build on it? If so, will the Minister of State outline the steps ahead and the likely timeframe?
I am delighted the Deputy mentioned the interim work. Cork County Council commissioned consultants to complete the design of the interim work on flood measures for Ballyvourney and Ballymakeera. The Office of Public Works approved funding of €500,000 to Cork County Council under the OPW minor flood mitigation works and coastal protection scheme for the provision of temporary flood defence measures in the area. The works, which were completed recently, include a sandbag defence structure, increasing the ground level with ramps and the installation of two non-return valves.
This is a lot of work and it has been ongoing for some time. The Department is working closely with Cork County Council and the works are advancing. As the Deputy knows, there are options available and the consultants and the Department are working together closely. Interim measures were carried out but if there are other interim works that can be done, I ask the Deputy to raise them with the local authorities and we will fund them through the Department.
We come to this House every week and questions are put to us but I put it to Members that there is a lot we can do ourselves as regards working with the councils. The Government has provided the funding through the minor works scheme and is proactive in ensuring money is spent. In regard to the long-term solution the Deputy is seeking, we are working very closely with the local authorities to develop a plan.
The interim works are certainly a milestone. The focus and momentum need to be on the major scheme. Studies were conducted previously and it would make sense to use those earlier studies to inform the next stages. It would be madness to waste them and start again at square one. Will the work that was done previously inform or continue to inform the major works scheme? Can we establish that? What are the next steps on the major works scheme? Much of the focus has been on providing protection from flooding along the Sullane river. Will the possibility of flooding from other sources be included in the major scheme? We saw flooding come from the other side, in the pitch in Coláiste Ghobnatan, near Cluain Réidh and around the factories. Will those kinds of works be included in the major scheme or is there a way of advancing things ahead of that?
All studies to date will enhance the development of the scheme. I cannot give an up-to-date answer to the second part of the Deputy's question but I will visit his neck of the woods. I know he has raised this issue over and over again. I will meet the local authority to try to move this issue on. The interim works are good and help to alleviate some of the problem but the overall project is the delivery of the major scheme. I want to deliver that and I will work with the Deputy and Department closely on it.
Childcare Services
87. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform if the immense challenges facing the childcare sector, including a lack of spaces, will be considered by the new infrastructure division of his Department and by the new accelerating infrastructure task force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28049/25]
I have established the accelerating infrastructure task force to support the immediate work programme of the new infrastructure division in my Department, which is to identify and propose measures to address barriers to the delivery of strategic infrastructure across Ireland. This issue is key priority for me and the Government.
The work programme for the task force and the new division will focus on many critical infrastructure areas in terms of the electricity and energy, transport and water sectors, as these three key elements are required to underpin the development of all other economic and social infrastructure, including healthcare, housing and childcare facilities. The specific issue of childcare policy and places to which the Deputy refers is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality.
The wide-ranging work of the accelerating infrastructure task force is accelerating the project life cycle which should support the underpinning of better social infrastructure, including childcare. For the Deputy's information, the role of the task force, which I chair, is primarily focused on cross-cutting policies. Specifically, it will provide strategic guidance and expert input to policy proposals to speed up infrastructure delivery. It will provide guidance and advice to officials to ensure that barriers to infrastructure delivery are identified accurately and represent the most impactful barriers impeding timely and effective delivery. It will also provide guidance and advice on the development of a small number of high-impact reform items that are robust, achievable, time-bound and rigorously focused on addressing the challenges identified. These reform actions will be brought to Government for approval. The task force will oversee the subsequent implementation of these reform actions through challenge meetings with the Departments and agencies responsible for implementation.
Furthermore, the existing Project Ireland and national development plan set out national strategic outcomes which emphasise the importance of access to quality childcare, education and health services and aim to ensure that the co-ordination and provision of childcare places, primary and post-primary schools places and health infrastructure are consistent with the objectives of the national planning framework. Therefore, the ongoing review of the national development plan will consider the programme for Government commitments on childcare. The broader references are there in terms of State involvement in the provision of childcare.
This Government will be judged by its delivery of critical infrastructure, that is, infrastructure needed for social and economic reasons. In that regard, we have not seen significant public investment in childcare infrastructure in our local communities. For reference, €45 million was ring-fenced to expand childcare capacity in the NDP over the past two years, versus €1.4 billion in the education capital budget for 2025 alone. We have planning guidelines that theoretically link new homes to the delivery of private childcare places but it is not working effectively enough. I understand that critical infrastructure, with a capital "C" and capital "I", has mainly referred to nation-building infrastructure for energy, housing, transport, water and climate resilience but the underinvestment we have seen in childcare and the over-reliance on private providers to ensure every community and family has access means childcare infrastructure is now critical. Early learning and childcare are nation building.
Looking at the past number of years and the overall support given in terms of childcare affordability, we have made significant strides which have helped many families throughout communities. We also need to work with many of the SMEs and childcare providers, many of which are in the constituency Deputy Currie and I represent, on some of the challenges they have reflected to us as part of the budget process. That is why the broad work of the infrastructure division is to ensure the national development plan's strategic outcomes are underpinned with accelerated delivery. We are advancing that through the reforms that will be stood up from the infrastructure task force and also the additionality that will be made available in the context of the review of the national development plan.
A central and pressing focus in our economy right now is that we have serious constraints in energy and, in particular, water. Without those two fundamentals, we cannot deliver the homes and social infrastructure we require or the investment opportunities that will bring broader employment growth and prosperity for the future. Of course, there are other objectives in the national development plan, which I share. The broad outworking of this work will strengthen the provision of childcare.
For the first time, the programme for Government commits to a public model of childcare. The Taoiseach has confirmed that work is needed to map out how we will do that in a public building programme and how that will harmonise with existing provision. He also confirmed that the new supply and management unit has been established to do forward planning and delivery and to assess demand, plan and expand public supply using CSO figurers childcare committees and GIS systems. It is great we will be working on establishing demand but we will also have to back that up with supply. Affordability is great but you have to be able to access it in the first place. A lack of consistent and coherent childcare is still a barrier to women in employment. According to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, nearly nine out of ten Dublin businesses say childcare is a challenge to their staff recruitment and retention, with one fifth of them saying it is their biggest obstacle. Therefore, childcare should be included in the revised NDP at a significant game-changing level that reflects the now critical need for childcare infrastructure. It would be very significant to hear the Minister say today that childcare will be included in the new infrastructure division of his Department and by the new accelerating infrastructure task force. Other countries consider childcare an economic necessity and we should too.
First, the cross-cutting work of the infrastructure division and the task force is to cut through some of the processes in place in every Department which affect delivery of infrastructure - economic or social. Second, there is a review of the national development plan. That is a bilateral engagement involving all Ministers on what their priorities will be for the next number of years. Obviously, there will be an additional envelope available and work has commenced on that. I have been meeting Ministers bilaterally to discuss what their priorities are and what is deliverable over the next number of years around capital allocations. The Department of Children, Disability and Equality have put forward a variety of prospective priorities when it comes to children, disability and equality and we are working through those on a whole-of-government level. We will be able to set out the allocations for those in July.
Flood Relief Schemes
88. Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for an update on the flood relief schemes in progress or in planning for Kilkenny and Carlow; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27771/25]
I have seen first hand the devastating impact that flooding can have on homes, businesses, people, families and communities. I understand the flooding problem cannot be eliminated but it can be managed and mitigated to reduce its likelihood, severity or impact. It is in that context that I ask for an update from the Minister of State on flooding projects that are in planning or in progress in Carlow and Kilkenny.
The Government is investing a sum of €113 million in flood relief measures completed or under way across counties Kilkenny and Carlow.
In 2018, the OPW launched the flood risk management plans. Due to constraints in specialised engineering consultancy services and skills, it is not feasible to concurrently deliver all 150 flood relief schemes identified by the plans. Kilkenny County Council is leading the delivery of flood relief schemes for Graiguenamanagh-Tinnahinch, Ballyhale, Piltown and Freshford in the first tranche of the schemes and piloting a new national delivery model. The OPW is funding two staff in Kilkenny County Council to project manage the delivery of these schemes. Carlow County Council is leading the delivery of the Carlow town scheme to protect 35 properties.
The preferred option for the €26 million Graiguenamanagh-Tinnahinch flood relief scheme to protect 84 properties has been identified. Kilkenny County Council expect to submit this planning permission in quarter 3 of 2025.
The €2 million Ballyhale flood relief scheme to protect 28 properties received planning consent in August 2024. Detailed design for the scheme to progress to construction is nearing completion. It is programmed that construction will commence in quarter 1 of 2026 with substantial completion of the scheme in quarter 4 of 2027.
The Office of Public Works has carried out a map review of Carlow town and is discussing with the council commencing topographical survey, re-estimation of flood flows and computer modelling to produce flood mapping, to inform the design options for the scheme.
The OPW is also piloting a new national delivery model for all tranche 2 flood relief schemes, through four tranche 2 schemes across counties Kilkenny and Donegal, including Freshford and Piltown. The pilot is changing how the data for the scheme design is collected by the local authority. Kilkenny County Council is due to appoint a contractor in the coming weeks and go to tender for topography surveys and CCTV surveys before the end of July. In addition to this, the OPW hydrometric section will be installing gauges in Freshford and Piltown to provide data on the river levels.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive response. I get that flood relief schemes are complex projects and there is a lot of detailed engineering analysis, public engagement, etc. I will focus on the Graiguenamanagh-Tinnahinch flood relief scheme specifically. In 2018, funding was announced for this project following significant funding in 2016. The Minister of State was in this role in a previous Government.
In 2020 I was chairman of Kilkenny County Council. In March 2020 a €9 million contract for a flood relief scheme was signed that was going to sort out Graiguenamanagh and Tinnahinch. It was a joint initiative between Kilkenny and Carlow County Councils. As the Minister of State said, planning permission has not even been applied for yet. We are looking at quarter 3 of this year. Is there anything at all we can do to speed this up? Will the Minister of State come down to Graiguenamanagh and meet the people there? I mention the devastation that it caused nine years ago and we still do not have a long-term solution, notwithstanding all the works. I know €9 million has been approved but that was in 2018. Will additional funding be made available should the project go above that particular amount?
It is open to the local authority to apply to the OPW for 90% funding for localised flood mitigation works up to €750,000 through the minor flood mitigation works and coastal protection scheme. This money is available through the minor works scheme for which the local authority can apply. I, like Deputy Cleere, am sometimes frustrated by the delay in delivering the scheme, but from when you announce the scheme to delivering it, you are looking at 11 years. While I would love to be able to speed up that process, I am constrained by the planning rules and regulations. We have to work closely with all the agencies to deliver on the scheme as well as work closely with the local authorities. In fairness, in terms of the report I outlined, a lot of work is being done in Kilkenny and Carlow. There is a huge amount of delivery of schemes. While it is slow, it is progressing. I will visit the area because I gave a commitment that I would. I will do that in due course.
I thank the Minister of State and genuinely acknowledge and appreciate his support for new schemes. I know he is doing everything he can. We spoke privately about these on a number of occasions. Regarding tranche 2 flood relief schemes, and we spoke about Graiguenamanagh and Tinnahinch, there are other schemes in Kilkenny, such as Freshford, Piltown, Inistioge and Thomastown in particular. They are in the tranche 2 flood relief schemes. I think there are 50 schemes nationally. Given the fact it takes ten or 11 years to get these projects over the line and long-term solutions in place, will the Minister of State commit to progressing those particular schemes so the people of Thomastown, Inistioge, Piltown and Freshford will have the peace of mind and security of knowing their homes or businesses are not going to be flooded or destroyed as happened a number of years ago?
As I outlined, the Deputy is lucky in the sense that Kilkenny and Donegal have been picked for tranche 2 for the pilot scheme. How we can deliver on tranche 2 is something I am looking closely at within my Department, because we have so many schemes out there. We must not get away from the fact of how many schemes are progressing and are at planning stage, delivery stage, and construction stage. Tranche 2 seems to be somewhat trapped. I am working closely with the local authorities and my Department to see if there is a way to deliver, or even push local authorities to come in for, funding through the minor works schemes. That is something I am looking at. I am trying to change that at present and I hope to have good news on it very shortly. It will help local authorities throughout the country but particularly the one the Deputy spoke about.
National Development Plan
89. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for an update on the review of the National Development Plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27337/25]
112. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for an update on the National Development Plan Review. [27720/25]
147. Deputy James Geoghegan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform if he will provide an update on the National Development Plan Review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28161/25]
153. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to outline the progress that has been made on the National Development Plan review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27885/25]
Seán Fleming
156. Deputy Seán Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform the status of the review of the National Development Plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27741/25]
The Minister can see this is a very hot topic. I want to ask for an update on the review of the national development plan and for a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 89, 112, 147, 153 and 156 together.
The programme for Government sets out the clear ambition to prioritise the delivery of transformative, critical and growth-enhancing infrastructure over the next five years. To support these goals, Government has prioritised an early review of the national development plan, which is being led by my Department.
From February, officials in my Department set about identifying the parameters, priorities and critical milestones for the review. This was done to support the ambition of the review to improve our infrastructure, especially housing, water, energy, transport and health digitalisation.
In early April, I secured Government approval to commence the review process following which Departments were written to, to advise on the Government's approved approach to the review. The core focus of the review will be to ensure that supporting economic infrastructure can be prioritised to deliver the tens of thousands of additional homes that are required and to support our broader competitiveness.
Throughout April and early May, Departments have prepared their funding submissions and this has been followed by bilateral engagement between my Department and individual spending Departments to assess investment plans and programmes. This series of bilateral engagements commenced at official level and is currently continuing and has commenced fully at ministerial level.
Alongside the review process, Departments have also been asked to consider whether their planned programmes meet the criteria for designated environmental projects to receive funding from the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. An amount of €3.15 billion is available from the fund out to 2030 and is part of the overall funding envelope. In addition, a wider assessment is being carried out around the climate impact of the funding as part of the NDP and that will be published alongside the review document in July.
I am also launching a public consultation on the review which will be open for submissions until 26 June. The consultation is an opportunity for individuals, Members or, indeed, organisations to share their views on national priorities for public capital investment. I will also be chairing a session on infrastructure prioritisation and delivery at the national economic dialogue, where interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to share their views across many sectors.
Intensive engagement at both official and ministerial level has commenced and the intention is to publish a review document in July that will feature five year capital allocations to Departments over the period 2026 to 2030 and overall capital ceilings to 2035.
While particular allocations obviously have yet to be agreed, the objective is to support what is set out in the programme for Government and, in particular, the delivery of thousands of additional homes and to boost our overall competitiveness.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I am sure others who come after me will speak in the same vein. There is very significant interest in this review because every area is ambitious for investment and development. I could speak about a number of projects in my area, including the Kilmoon Cross to Rath roundabout road project, but I specifically want to raise the issue of Navan rail. This is an excellent project on the basis of all the measurements that matter. It will transform County Meath economically, socially and environmentally because it will take thousands of cars off the roads. I welcome this project, which has been invested in and funded up to the planning phase but not to construction. I firmly believe it needs increased investment before 2030 to ensure it can be delivered in the quickest possible timeframe, uninterrupted and with no delays after planning. Hopefully, we will secure planning in the quickest possible timeframe too.
We are all waiting to see how the national development plan will proceed. Obviously, all of our areas require a lot of investment in infrastructure. The infrastructural deficit we have, especially across the west, is something I have raised with the Minister quite a number of times. We also need to look at procurement and how it can be used to benefit areas, particularly those more rural and isolated areas where different types of jobs are not as easy to come be. If we are spending a certain amount above a certain threshold, we need to look at introducing social clauses into the contracts as well to ensure that a certain number of apprentices on board and a certain number of people who live locally hired for these projects. We could thereby ensure that the money benefits local economies and that people can stay within their local areas.
I thank the Deputies for raising those issues. I am not going to get into the distribution of different projects or priorities today. I will say, however, that one of the areas of emphasis in the review of the national development plan is transport infrastructure. I am engaging with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, on that. The focus is to identify what projects can be delivered. I know there is a great deal of interest in Meath in the particular project Deputy O'Rourke referenced. There are many projects in other parts of the country that are critically important in terms of both the delivery of public transport and helping to fulfil broader climate objectives.
Deputy Farrell is absolutely right that there is a particular deficit regarding infrastructure objectives in parts of the west. The continued uplift we are giving in the context of the renewed national development plan will help support infrastructure objectives for the west of Ireland. We are reviewing the national procurement policy presently. The Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, is leading out on that work, which we will be progressing over the coming months. That will dictate the overall framework about how procurement decisions are made across Government contracts.
I thank the Minister for that answer. I will continue to fight the case for Navan rail. The Minister will appreciate many of the arguments we will make.
On housing delivery, I met recently with officials in Meath County Council. They have, including in their most recent county development plan, consistently argued the case that there is a real cap on development in County Meath in residential terms. They believe that the process, allowing for the lag with the CSO figures from the census, means that, in effect, Meath County Council, consistent with the parameters with the national planning framework and the national development plan, can deliver for a population of 20,000 more than it is being allowed to. The county council is engaging extensively with the Department of housing on that matter, but it obviously has a clear impact on how infrastructure investment might be prioritised. I bring this matter to the Minister's attention to make him aware of it, but also to ask him to engage with the Minister for housing on it as well.
Will the Minister provide an update on how his Department is coming at this review? Is it that the Department was ready for such a review or did pressure come about as a result of the announcement that there would be a review? Does he think that all the information required will be available when it is needed? It is also welcome that the Minister is saying there will be public consultation. That is always very welcome. As he will know, when we talk about infrastructure in the west, the problem is that we have not had investment in the basic infrastructure and that this can have an impact on everything. We consistently still have health centres in Conamara that do not have access to phone lines. We need to get that sorted because we need investment in this basic infrastructure.
I thank the Deputies for their respective contributions. On Deputy O'Rourke point on the need for much more additional headroom for Meath County Council, the new national planning framework provides additional headroom to local authorities to zone more land to drive increased housing supply. The current baseline position is not at all near what we require to deliver the quantum of housing we in this House all want to see delivered. The need to accelerate the outworking of that will be really important in the period ahead. I take the Deputy's other point on the opportunities around transport-oriented development.
In response to Deputy Farrell, the Department has been very clear around the programme for Government commitment on an earlier view of the national development plan. There is a very strong team in the investment office within the Department that has been ready to conduct this work. We have received submissions from all other Departments around the priorities and the extensive uplift they all want. We have to manage and co-ordinate that. There is always more ambition than there is possibility around what can be allocated, but we are working through that. The Deputy is right that we need to make sure there is a focus on basic infrastructure, particularly water, energy, and, in certain instances in rural Ireland, transport, in order that we can meet the broader industrial opportunities that are there if we invest and accelerate the deliver of that. I appreciate the contributions of the Deputies in respect of this matter.
Expenditure Reviews
90. Deputy Naoise Ó Cearúil asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform if he will detail the way in which the new accelerating infrastructure task force will address persistent delays and cost overruns in major public projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27773/25]
The new accelerating infrastructure task force is a welcome move to tackle delivery delays and cost overruns in major public projects such as the national children's hospital, MetroLink and thousands of social and affordable homes that are delayed or over budget. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has noted that our infrastructure delivery is 25% below European norms. How will the task force overcome these systemic challenges and deliver projects on time and within budget?
I thank Deputy Ó Cearúil. In line with the commitments made in the programme for Government, I recently announced a series of actions to accelerate the delivery of strategic infrastructure in Ireland, including the creation of a new infrastructure division in my Department. Initially, the infrastructure division will focus on the preparation of a systematic, evidence-based assessment of the barriers impeding timely infrastructure development. To undertake this work, experts from key State agencies have already been redeployed to my Department and are working with civil servants on this task.
Over the coming weeks, the infrastructure division will engage with key stakeholders to gather the evidence necessary to identify the most critical barriers to development that might potentially cause delays. This will be combined with a consultation and public engagement in June to gather the broader views of stakeholders across our economy. The team will also examine what reforms have been successfully introduced in other jurisdictions that may be applicable in Ireland. I expect to provide a report to Government by the end of July on what have been identified as the most significant barriers that are slowing infrastructure development. The results of this analysis will inform a focused plan on high-impact reform measures that Government will consider for implementation.
On cost overruns, delivering value for money is central to my Department’s approach to infrastructure delivery and is achieved though clear frameworks and guidance. The infrastructure guidelines, the code of practice for the governance of State bodies and the public financial procedures clearly set out accountability and decision-making responsibilities. This guidance provided by my Department outlines clear established roles and responsibilities to mitigate against waste and improve value for money. The guidelines will also ensure value for money is embedded at every policy stage, which will ensure a transparent approach and the use of corrective mechanism where required.
My Department intends to fully review the public financial procedures. This review will help us to further strengthen and clarify our robust expenditure management framework and provide efficiencies in the delivery of infrastructure. Furthermore, it will set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the various actors across the system in the delivery of value for money. Through strengthened governance, Departments are being reminded that spending decisions must consider quality, expertise, and long-term impact to avoid superficial or low-impact investments.
The appointment of 12 experts to the taskforce, including from the ESRI, the NTA and IDA Ireland, is encouraging. Its focus on high-impact reforms and boosting productivity is crucial. With construction productivity around 30% lower than our European peers and an estimated shortfall of 80,000 workers, delivery risks falling short, according to the CFI. Will the Minister outline which specific reforms the taskforce will prioritise? Will it be, for example, digital planning, modular construction, or streamlined approvals? Will the Minister consider private sector input into the taskforce to ensure we harness all available expertise? How will the Minister guarantee swift implementation and oversight of these reforms?
My next question will not be reached but it is related to this one as it concerns the efficient use of public moneys. I welcome the launch by the Department of guidelines on the responsible use in public services of artificial intelligence, AI. The Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, and the Minister both launched that document and I commend the Department on it. The use of AI can lead to greater efficiencies in decision-making and the use of predictive analytics is central to data-driven policy making. I am sure, in the context of what Deputy Ó Cearúil has talked about, rolling it out will benefit the delivery of better public services. In so doing, will the Minister also extend to Members of the Oireachtas the right to use large language models and other AI-enabled platforms on our devices so that we can more efficiently deliver our services to our constituents?
I thank both Deputies. In response to Deputy Ó Cearúil, there will be significant private sector input into the work programme and the development of the reforms. We have six external experts on the accelerated infrastructure taskforce. That is to drive accountability and also an economy-wide engagement on how we can cut through unnecessary process delays and red tape which is impeding infrastructure delivery. As I said, I will have a report on that work by July. The outworking of that will be ensuring that we drive delivery and accountability around that over the period ahead.
In response to Deputy Byrne, I welcomed his involvement and presence at the launch of the use of AI in the public service guidelines. It is really important that we complement the use of AI in terms of the future of public services and delivering better services for citizens. As the Deputy knows, in the guidelines that we have issued, it is a matter for each competent authority to work with each individual on the responsible use of AI while also trying to encourage the use of AI across the public service. I am sure the Deputy can engage with the Houses of the Oireachtas on how it can develop mechanisms for the appropriate use of AI by Members of the Oireachtas if that is something he wants to advance.
It is encouraging to hear about engagement with the private sector on the taskforce. With €165 billion committed under the national development plan, delivery must keep pace with ambition. How will the taskforce work with industry to close workforce gaps and improve productivity, to which Deputy Byrne also alluded? Would the Minister consider establishing dedicated delivery units within agencies to ensure a focused, agile approach? Finally, KPMG has highlighted the need for balanced regional investment. How will the Minister ensure that areas like Kildare North are not left behind while much of the focus remains on Dublin? We need delivery timelines that work for every region.
When one looks at the national planning framework and the strategic objectives that are set out there, balanced regional development is central. As part of the overall review of the national development plan, we are looking at critical, growth-enabling infrastructure priorities around the country and how we disburse the capital allocations. That will be really important in the separate work of the review of the national development plan but clearly, the outworking of the reforms we are advancing is to ensure delivery but also to empower agents to accelerate their respective projects where the pipeline has been too elongated and complex over the last number of years. What we are trying to do is have a cross-cutting reform to support the delivery of many of the projects that the Deputy referenced.
Middle East
169. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 37 of 11 February 2025, the timeline for the passage of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 that incorporates a ban on imports and services from these areas, supported by the advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s occupation and settlements issued on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27350/25]
170. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on the progress of legislation to ban trade with the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27406/25]
179. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will reconsider what he stated earlier in February 2025 and ban services in the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. [26772/25]
185. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will define the timeline for the enactment of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. [26771/25]
191. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will provide an update on the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018; the date on which the Bill will brought before the Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27335/25]
195. Deputy Paul Lawless asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reason he will not implement the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, in light of his comments that Israel is committing war crimes over the blockading of aid in Gaza. [24169/25]
I understand this question is in a group, such is Deputies' concern about the occupied territories Bill or, to give it its proper name, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, which incorporates a ban on imports and services from the occupied areas, supported by the advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s occupation and settlements issued on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice. It takes on added meaning with Israel's announcement today that it intends to establish 22 further new settlements in the occupied West Bank.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 169, 170, 179, 185, 191 and 195 together.
I agree with the Deputy that the Bill takes on an even greater level of concern after the horrific announcement today of Israel's plans to develop further illegal settlements. The situation in the West Bank is deeply concerning. It is clearly unacceptable. I want to be clear that Ireland and the EU are strongly opposed to Israel's settlement policy and activities, including in and around East Jerusalem. In my intervention at the EU-Israel Association Council in February I called attention to our strong opposition to Israel's settlement policy and activities and to all actions that undermine the viability of the two-state solution, including extremist settler violence.
Ireland has strongly supported the sanctions adopted by the EU against both individuals and entities involved in settler violence and we continue to call for the imposition of further EU sanctions. At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 May, Ireland called for the immediate adoption of further sanctions targeting violent settlers. At the same meeting, the Foreign Affairs Council agreed to carry out a review of Israel's obligation under Article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement.
The situation in the West Bank, where Israel is conducting its single largest operation in 20 years, is extremely concerning. It demands our urgent attention and appropriate action. At least 40,000 people have been displaced since January. The UN human rights chief told the United Nations Security Council last month that the announcement that residents must not return to their homes for a year raises serious concerns about long-term mass displacement.
Combined with unprecedented levels of violence and record levels of settlement construction, there is a huge risk of further destabilisation. The UN human rights office in the occupied Palestinian territory has expressed alarm at the decision of the Israeli security cabinet this month to resume land registration in Area C of the occupied West Bank. The role of the international community, including the United Nations and diplomatic missions on the ground, remains indispensable in terms of monitoring and reporting on developments. I wish to put on the record that I was utterly appalled at reports that the IDF fired shots in the vicinity of a visit to Jenin on 21 May by a group of diplomats, including two Irish diplomats based in Ramallah. Fortunately, no one was hurt but this is clearly intimidatory behaviour that must be condemned in the strongest terms. A senior official in my Department has formally conveyed to the ambassador of Israel my strong condemnation and deep concern at this incident and has called for a full explanation and accountability for those responsible - those who decided to fire shots in the direction of diplomats. In line with its obligations under international law, Israel must ensure the protection of foreign diplomats. Our mission in Ramallah plays an important role in monitoring the situation on the ground in Palestine. Our diplomats do an excellent job and must be allowed to do their jobs.
Turning to the question of legislation, as this House will be aware, the previous Government carried out an extensive analysis and review of the occupied territories Bill late last year. The Government’s analysis was that substantive amendments would be required to most, if not all, of the Bill’s provisions in order to bring it in line with the Constitution and try to reduce the risk of an EU legal challenge. These considerations remain central to the Government’s approach. In this regard, the new Government, in the programme for Government, sets out a clear commitment to progress legislation prohibiting goods from the occupied Palestinian territory. The Government is also clear that any legislation regulating trade with illegal settlements will be advanced as a necessary step to comply with international law and it would be wrong for others to see it as a “boycott” of Israel because it is important that this Bill is clear on what it is and what it is not in terms of its legality.
Consistent with the position of the EU, Ireland has been clear in underlining the policies and measures that distinguish between the State of Israel and Israeli settlements, which are clearly illegal under international law. I am advancing with the commitment in the programme for Government and have engaged with the sponsor of the current Bill, which the Deputy has correctly named. I have made it clear to Senator Black that our approach is to bring forward our own legislation. I do not wish to speak for the Senator but I think her view is that she does not care who brings forward the legislation, once it comes forward and is advanced. The general scheme of that legislation will go to the foreign affairs committee in June. I am conscious the Chair of that committee is present in the Dáil. I will endeavour to get the general scheme to the committee as early as possible in June.
I think we all agree that Ireland's trade with the occupied Palestinian territory is very limited. That is not a reason not to do this, and I am not suggesting it is. It is the right thing to do. However, all of us, through our various political movements, should be encouraging other countries to do the same. It would be a big benefit if a number of other countries were to join Ireland in passing legislation that we believe is compatible with EU law and we were to ground that in the narrow route that is the International Court of Justice advisory opinion and the Attorney General's advice that flows form that.
Before Deputy Connolly responds, there are six questions in this grouping. I will let the Deputy respond on the second round and let Deputy Murphy in now.
When questions are grouped, the Deputy with the first question gets 30 seconds and everyone in the group gets the same time, thereafter, one minute. No one is deprived of time.
Work away, Deputy.
Does the Tánaiste see the date on the occupied territories Bill? It is 2018. It is now 2025. I welcome that some progress has been made. However, it has taken the deaths and slaughter of 54,000 Palestinians, and that figure, which I read out this morning, is totally inaccurate. According to The Lancet, the figure is much higher than that.
At the very least, this occupied territories Bill needs to be pushed through before this summer to ban goods and services, if our word is to mean anything. I do not mind or care whether our trade is limited. This is something that needs to be done at its most basic level.
During the week the Government refused to vote to stop the selling of bonds in Ireland or, rather, the approving of the prospectus. It said to do so would not comply with EU law. I have a completely different view, if you look at EU law. I asked a question and the answer I got is really shocking. First of all, I asked a very specific question about all State investments in Israeli bonds. It took until the end to get the answer, namely, that the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund has invested in Israeli bonds. The most recent figures available are for the end of 2023. There are no figures for 2024. That entity now holds direct holdings in Israeli war bonds totalling €2.62 million.
What is now important is that we implement this Bill as urgently as possible and that we do it right. Doing it right does not mean excluding the majority of our trade with the occupied territories; it means including goods and services. I would like to get into, in some detail, what the Tánaiste says is the legal basis for excluding services is. He said we have a narrow legal pathway identified by the ICJ and the Attorney General. However, the ICJ makes no distinction between trade in goods and trade in services. It says that states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements. Similarly, the Attorney General's advice, which has been leaked on The Ditch, and which Deputy O'Gorman has referred to, says there has been no reference to an issue around services in his very detailed legal advice. People can check that for themselves. Not including services seems to me to be a policy choice. The Tánaiste has said in the last few weeks that this is a legal decision but I would like to hear the rationale and basis on which this legal distinction is being made.
On a daily basis, we are seeing the latest version of the absolute horrors visited on Palestinians and the sheer loss of life. The estimates for those who are missing and crushed under buildings escalates every day. There is bombing of hospitals, schools, clinics and homes and the total destruction of Gaza and its infrastructure, roads, wastewater plants and everything else. It is clear what the Israeli game plan is here. It is the fragmentation and occupation of the West Bank. The news today was an escalation and expansion of that. It is clear that this is about wiping out not just the Palestinian state, but the Palestinian people. I appeal to the Tánaiste to have this Bill brought forward as quickly as possible and to include services in it. Services are estimated to account for 70% of trade. The ICJ ruling is clear as far as I am concerned. There is an obligation on us. We must do everything we can. It may not have a huge effect because the amount of trade is limited but look at what happened when the Dunnes Stores workers stopped selling South African fruit. Look at what that snowballed into. It brought apartheid down, or helped to bring it down.
Deputy Ó Murchú, are you speaking for Deputy Darren O'Rourke?
Yes. I have already brought up this particular issue. The Tánaiste is going to be dealing with the issue of services until we see delivery. The timeline is vital. I agree with Deputy Murphy. The Tánaiste has to elaborate to some degree on what the legal issues are. It cannot be beyond us to find a solution in order that we can deliver the occupied territories Bill as soon as possible and before we see the absolute end of the Palestinian people. Mahmoud Nawaja, when he was here, spoke about the need to see a tipping point. That tipping point is only going to be reached when states like Ireland take action and, as the Tánaiste said, we see action further afield that makes Israel feel like the pariah state it is as it carries out this genocide. Is the State looking at any means by which the Central Bank would not facilitate the sale of these war or genocide bonds?
I take the point Deputy Connolly makes around the date of the original Bill being 2018. That is, of course, a statement of fact. Respectfully, I make the point back that, for better or worse, trade is an EU competency, and I am happy to be in the European Union. It has been the position of successive Governments for quite a period of time that, therefore, any issues in that Bill were a matter to be dealt with at EU level rather than at member state level. The change, from the Government's legal understanding, was the ICJ advisory opinion. In my previous role as Taoiseach I asked the Attorney General to look again at the ability of a member state to do something in the context of the ICJ advisory opinion, which, as Deputy Murphy reminds us, reminded nation's of their obligation to act in this space. The Attorney General helpfully and importantly came back and identified what I would describe as a narrow way forward. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the legal advice in front of me. It is not a risk-free way forward, which we are not looking for by the way, but a narrow way forward to progress legislation. When I and many others entered the general election campaign, it was on that basis that every political party or grouping in Dáil Éireann was committing to enacting legislation in this space. I take the point on 2018 but I want to outline on the record of the House why I believe the position is different now, at least legally, than it was in 2018.
Deputies Murphy, Ó Murchú, Stanley and Connolly all asked a very fair question in asking me to tell them the legal difference in relation to goods versus services. That is a perfectly appropriate question to ask. My understanding, which I am setting out without the benefit of having advice in front of me, is there is a clearer delineation of goods and services at an EU level for a member state to act. However, I intend to seek the updated advice of the Attorney General in relation to that. I take the point that Deputy Murphy made and I have heard Deputy O'Gorman make before relating to the Attorney General's advice that has been published. I do not have a policy difference with the Deputies. I am doing this, I hope, with all of them because we are horrified by the genocide we are seeing happening. We want to take an action and we hope it will inspire and motivate others and help bring about pressure on Israel to end what is happening in Gaza. Obviously, the position I occupy is that we have to make sure that it is legally robust. I think we all share that view.
I do not like invoking her name or speaking for her - she is well able to speak for herself - but when I spoke to Senator Black I made the point that the position of my Department, from a legal point of view, was that goods were potentially legally permissible but services may not be. I also said I was happy to be proven wrong on that. There is a practical implication around services that is not in the policy space. There is a practical implication as to how you would enforce the services issue rather than the goods issue.
The occupied territories Bill, however limited, has to be passed for goods and services. It is the least we can do. The constant refrain that Europe might take infringement proceedings against us is unacceptable. Let us face that if it happens. There is a genocide happening in our name while we stand here and talk, so we need to take action. The limited way that the Government is dealing with the Central Bank's role and its refusal to look at that is also part of this discussion. It is limiting it to the three Cs, namely, comprehensibility, consistency and some other C. The Government is not looking at the overall obligation on the Central Bank to comply with its own Central Bank Act. That Act says it must comply with European law, which lays down fundamental human rights. It is not even being measured against that, or public policy. It is similar with State investment. We are actually investing in war bonds. We have moved beyond asking the Central Bank to stop the role that it has and if it cannot do so, we should then bring in the necessary legislation. We now find out that we are investing public money in war bonds.
There is a significant weight of learned legal opinion which says the Government can do goods and services. The Tánaiste will have seen the letter from 350-plus of Ireland's most prominent lawyers stating that they do not consider there to be any insurmountable legal obstacles preventing the adoption of legislation prohibiting the import of goods and services produced in the unlawful Israeli settlements. Two of the UK's most prominent EU law experts, cited by the Attorney General himself, have taken the view that the prohibition of settlement services, to the extent that they fall within the scope of EU law, is also justified by reasons of public policy.
I think the Tánaiste effectively said that he did not have Attorney General advice saying he could not include services. The AG advice, in fact, does not mention anything. It says it is a political choice about whether the Government goes with the existing Bill or drafts a new Bill. Instead, it is up to the Department. In any case, this is all likely to end up in an EU court. It is likely the European Commission will challenge even a Bill that only focuses on goods. If there is a strong legal case, and maybe a case can be made both ways in terms of services, why do we not take the full belt and braces approach and defend it and then see what the ECJ says?
My hearing is not 100%. I wanted to ask about the Tánaiste's conversation with Senator Black and the tail end of that. I am not trying to be awkward but would he mind repeating that again, please? I was not able to pick up correctly what he was saying.
There are obviously different opinions out there and different legal opinion. This crisis puts a weight on us and many people are depending on us as a neutral company to act and show an example. The Palestinian ambassador will tell the Tánaiste this. People out in the street tell me this the whole time. People walking by Leinster House tell me. People on the streets down in County Laois tell me the whole time that we need to be doing more than we are. The old saying is that doctors differ and patients die. Solicitors and barristers differ but, my God, the level of death and destruction is absolutely horrific. I think we are all agreed on that. I have never seen anything like it. Will the Tánaiste clarify what he said? I apologise but my hearing is not 100%.
In the West Bank, people face regular slaughter and what is modern-day colonisation and land grabbing. In Gaza, the Palestinians are facing wipeout. Time is not on our side. Legal minds' belief that it is possible to include services is already in the public domain, whatever the Tánaiste's conversations are going to be with the Attorney General. Those conversations would need to be positive but they need to happen as soon as possible because we need to have this done.
I agree with what Deputy Connolly has said. Whatever about the fact that we have an insufficient amount of divestment from firms that are involved in Israel and the occupied territories, it is not in any way acceptable that we would be investing in these war bonds. Have we looked at any means by which the Central Bank would not facilitate the sale war bonds that are facilitating genocide? I know the arguments that have been made but infringement proceedings from the EU are not a good enough reason.
As the Deputy can imagine, I will be engaging with the Attorney General as we seek to advance this general scheme.
In response to Deputy Stanley's request, that was the point I was making. In the previous Government, I had conversations about whether it was possible to move forward with an occupied territories Bill.
I accept that the line Deputy Murphy is quoting regarding political choice is accurate, but from being in the briefings with the Attorney General and hearing the now Taoiseach when he was in my role addressing the foreign affairs committee, it is the clear legal view of the Government that the current Bill would not have been legally permissible. That is genuinely the legal advice available to me.
It could be amended.
Deputy Murphy is right. That was an option. It could be amended line by line or section by section. Our view was that bringing forward a new Bill was a better way of doing it.
I am open to persuasion on the issue of services. It is not a persuasion that needs to be done from a policy point. Rather, I am open to persuasion as to whether it would work in this Bill. I am not afraid of infringement proceedings. There are much more important things going on in the world. However, I want to pass a Bill that is robust, practical and legally enforceable. I cannot pass legislation that I believe not to be legal.
Question No. 171 taken with Written Answers.
I am moving on to question No. 172. Deputy Lahart is taking this on behalf of Deputy Cathal Crowe.
I will wrap the two questions together if that is okay with the Chair and the Minister.
Deputy Lahart is taking question Nos. 172 and 173.
Ukraine War
172. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has had any recent discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26984/25]
173. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if any further sanctions will be imposed on Russia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26983/25]
Has the Tánaiste had any recent discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart and will he comment on that? Will he update us on whether any further sanctions will be imposed on Russia?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 172 and 173 together.
I thank Deputy Lahart. I am committed, as is the rest of the Government, to working with our European and Ukrainian counterparts to maintain our solidarity with Ukraine and to ensure Ukraine gets the support it needs to defend itself against brutal Russian aggression. This remains a key focus of my engagements, both bilaterally and at the European Union. Ukraine, as the Deputy can imagine, features prominently on the monthly agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council. We are regularly - in fact, almost always - joined by the foreign minister of Ukraine, generally virtually, to hear directly about the situation on the ground and Ukraine’s most pressing needs. This is an important forum for discussion on what more the EU can do to ensure Ukraine gets the support it urgently needs to defend itself and to deter future Russian aggression.
One of my earliest engagements as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was an introductory phone call with the Ukrainian foreign minister. During that call, I reaffirmed our country's commitment to providing much-needed diplomatic, political, humanitarian, economic and non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine. On 15 February this year, I met the minister on the margins of the Munich Security Conference where we had a detailed exchange on recent developments and how Ireland could further strengthen its support. I have also had a number of phone calls and engagements with the minister since then.
In September 2024, I visited Kyiv and saw at first hand the appalling impacts of Russian aggression. On that occasion, I signed with President Zelenskyy a bilateral agreement on support and co-operation, which underlined Ireland’s unwavering commitment to continuing to support Ukraine and pledged us both to deepen our co-operation and partnership.
Most recently, it was a privilege to be joined virtually by the Ukrainian foreign minister when he addressed the Global Ireland Summit on 6 May. The minister pointed to the global ramifications of Russia’s full-scale invasion, including by undermining the multilateral rules-based order on which we rely for peace and prosperity. Ireland’s position is clear - this war and the threat posed by Russia are not only existential issues for Ukraine but also a major challenge to the security of Europe. I look forward to further close co-operation with my counterpart to strengthen our collective response to these shared challenges.
Specifically on the issue of sanctions, Ireland has consistently supported strong sanctions against Russia in response to its unprovoked and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The scale and speed of the sanctions adopted by the EU in response to Russia’s brutal aggression have been unprecedented. The broad range of sanction measures put in place are having a tangible impact on the Russian economy. They are making it harder for Russia to access battlefield goods and to generate revenue to pay for its illegal war. Given Russia’s continuing aggression in Ukraine, while refusing to accept a ceasefire and continuing to target infrastructure, it is important that we maintain and increase this sanction pressure. That is why Ireland strongly supported the adoption on 20 May of the 17th package of sanctions against Russia, including its particular focus on measures to counter the shadow fleet. The listing of a further 189 shadow fleet vessels will limit the revenue Russia is able to generate from oil exports. I also welcome that consideration is already being given to a further set of sanctions measures.
We will continue to work closely with EU partners to ensure we are doing all that we can to exert maximum pressure on Russia to end its illegal war of aggression. In addition to imposing new measures, it is also critical that the sanctions we have adopted remain in place. We have been clear that the lifting of sanctions by any country or by the European Union should only ever be considered in the context of a lasting peace agreement.
I appreciate the combined answer there. I have a couple of comments. The Tánaiste will be aware of this and the briefings he gets will be far more sophisticated and informative than what I would be privy to, which is reading some of the international newspapers today, but it looks like Russia is mounting a further offensive into Ukraine. There is a lot of commentary in the press about what the US President's next step will be. The US President had said if Russia did not take certain steps, then he would not just consider sanctions but issue them. I do not know what the latest commentary is on that. We in the foreign affairs committee will be hosting the Ukrainian ambassador as well and doing our small piece in keeping that high on the agenda. I will be very keen and interested to hear what the ambassador has to update us on. I wonder about the unrealistic ultimatums that emerge from the US on a daily basis and how difficult that must be to deal with diplomatically. I imagine the uncertainty of that and the lack of a direct path make diplomacy quite difficult.
There was an impression at the outset of the new US Presidency that the President enjoyed a special relationship with the Russian President but now there are public clashes, so it is very foggy and unsteady from day to day. The US President is taking a very unsteady approach to diplomacy.
On sanctions, I am interested in what the Tánaiste is saying about the shadow fleet and I ask him to say a little bit more about that.
On global diplomacy, will the Tánaiste give us an insight into his view on the direction of travel of this conflict?
To start with the Deputy's last point, that is a huge concern because, in fairness to President Trump, he has been very clear that he wants the war to end. He wants peace and the President of the European Commission, President von der Leyen, has welcomed some of the interventions President Trump has made in that regard. There has been significant dialogue between a number of senior European leaders including the British Prime Minister, the French President, the President of the Commission, Prime Minister Tusk and others who have met a number of times. As the Deputy will have seen, there were phone calls back and forth between them and the Oval Office in endeavouring to get to a position of a ceasefire and, one would hope, a negotiated, just, lasting and enduring peace.
What we are now seeing is that there are two Presidents -although there is only aggressor - involved in the war, President Putin and President Zelenskyy. President Zelenskyy has said very clearly and categorically that he is willing, as is the Ukrainian Government, to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire but President Putin is not. Every day we hear from Russia and its proxies and there is always another hurdle, another if, but or caveat while, as the Deputy rightly says, we hear reports of further advances of the Russian offensive into Ukraine and the continued targeting of civilian infrastructure and crucial energy infrastructure as well.
Far be it from me to try to predict what the US President will do, which is a challenge, but one would hope that he would join with European friends and allies in trying to maximise the pressure on Russia. If he is saying that he wants peace and he wants parties to get around the table, then there has to be, in my view, sanctions for the party that is refusing to get around the table, particularly when that party is the aggressor in the brutal, illegal war.
We are continuing to engage. I should acknowledge that the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, was in Odesa recently and the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, was in Lviv. We are in constant contact and engagement, bilaterally and at EU level, in terms of to Ukraine. The sanctions Europe is putting in place are appropriate and an important part of keeping the pressure on Russia. The sanctions are being enforced in Ireland. EU regulations have direct effect in Irish law so it means they must be complied with in the same way as domestic Irish legislation. As such, a natural or legal person who contravenes the provisions of an EU sanctions regulation would be guilty of an offence and liable to prosecution.
We have seen an unprecedented scope of sanctions adopted by the EU since February 2022 in respect of Russia's illegal aggression in Ukraine. This has required an increased level of co-ordination and co-operation on sanctions across Government. My Department chairs the cross-departmental international sanctions committee, which monitors, reviews and co-ordinates the implementation, administration and exchange of information on sanctions. At EU level, co-ordination among member states has also increased to ensure that sanctions are implemented in a harmonised way. What we really need to see now is European unity on continuing the sanctions and the rollover of sanctions. Hungary must play its part in this, but regardless of Hungary's position, we are going to keep the sanctions in place. We also need to prepare an 18th package of sanctions.
I will provide the Deputy with a further note on the shadow fleet, given his interest in it.
Trade Agreements
174. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reason he or a representative from the Government did not attend the meeting organised by France of EU member states with concerns regarding the Mercosur trade deal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25622/25]
176. Deputy Cathy Bennett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will outline his engagements and position regarding the Mercosur trade agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27331/25]
I ask the Tánaiste to outline his engagements and position regarding the Mercosur trade agreement. We know the issues that exist for Irish farmers in this regard. They are afraid of 100,000 tonnes of South American beef entering the EU at the expense of deforestation. That means our farmers will need to do more while receiving less from the CAP. We are talking about this in the context of the Irish Government's failure to deliver a workable forestry framework. I attended a meeting with the IFA recently. Its representatives had been in Brussels and spoke about the feeling they had, no more than when we got the briefing last week from the Commission, that this was a done deal. They believe they are being sold out because they are being told they will have to accept this if they want anything on the derogation, which is obviously unacceptable.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 174 and 176 together.
I thank Deputy Ó Murchú. His party is working him hard today. I assure him that my officials and I remain in ongoing and close contact with a number of like-minded countries, including France, which the Deputy referenced in the question, on our opposition to the current EU-Mercosur trade deal. Indeed, as I stated in response to an earlier question, I held a bilateral meeting on 14 April with my French counterpart, the foreign minister, Mr. Barrot, at which we discussed international trade developments, including the Mercosur agreement.
Regarding the meeting referred to in the question, I hope the Deputy appreciates that it is not possible for the Government to attend every meeting but Ireland is very active in this space. As a small, open economy, we depend for our prosperity upon good two-way trading relations with the nations of the world. That is an important context. Ireland has traditionally always been a supporter of free, fair and open trade, in particular via the EU's free trade agreements. That is why I sought approval for legislative change at Cabinet this week that will allow us to ratify CETA, the free trade agreement with Canada. We have always been clear, however, that such agreements must defend our vulnerable sectors and that our farmers’ livelihoods must not be undermined through weak or ineffective environmental standards in other countries. Our position is clearly outlined in the programme for Government, which states that the Government will work with like-minded EU countries to stand up for Irish farmers and defend our interests in opposing the current Mercosur trade deal. In our trade negotiations, we have always been guided by standing up for and defending the interests of Irish farmers, along with securing enhanced market access opportunities for them and agrifood exports from our country.
On 6 December 2024, the European Commission announced that it had concluded negotiations with Mercosur. Since then, officials from my Department and other Departments have been carefully analysing the text of the additional legal instrument addressing sustainability commitments. My officials and I have continued to engage at EU level at every opportunity, with both the European Commission directly through the trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and with counterparts in EU member states, including France, to voice our concerns with the agreement and to interrogate the outcome of negotiations to assess if our concerns have been adequately addressed. I am not convinced they have been.
While our engagements with the Commission and counterparts in other EU member states are continuing, Ireland’s position on the EU-Mercosur agreement remains as clearly outlined in the programme for Government.
The Tánaiste is well aware of the fears in rural Ireland and particularly among farmers. I was worried when we had that briefing in the AV room where it was stated that, to a degree, all deals were done. It is unacceptable if this is a take it or leave it-type scenario, which is the way it was proposed. I ask for detail on the engagements that are happening. What are the engagements with the European Commission at this time? What are we looking at? We all know the issues, which have already been stated, around South American beef. We all understand that, to a degree, what is being done here is a deal to facilitate the sale of German cars and other goods. While that is obviously going to be part of any trade deal, we cannot be the whipping boy and Irish farming cannot suffer on that basis. We also know that there will be issues in terms of food security into the future.
We are always talking in this House about the sustainability of family farms. We have worries about the maintenance of the derogation. Some farmers have been impacted by the loss of the previous nitrates directive derogation. What is the Government's plan in terms of engagement with other like-minded countries? What are its plans for what can be done? What has the engagement with the Commission been like? The Minister mentioned that there had been a meeting on 10 April with other EU countries that opposed Mercosur that Ireland did not attend but he said that there had been a significant amount of engagement. What are the plans coming out of that engagement? What has the engagement with the Commission been like and, more importantly, what answers have been given by the Commission?
I had a significant one-on-one meeting with my French counterpart specifically about Mercosur. Our links and engagement with France on this remain intense and ongoing.
Our position within the European Commission is very well understood. I do not think other member states would be in any way surprised by Ireland's position. What happens next is important. At the moment, the agreement is undergoing a legal scrubbing, after which it will be translated into all the EU languages.
It is worth repeating that there is still a degree of uncertainty over what form the final Commission proposal to member states will take. There is one of two ways it can go. It can go as what is called a mixed agreement - this would require unanimous member state approval, which clearly does not exist; or it could go as a split agreement, with the trade elements applied on an interim basis, which would require approval at Council under qualified majority voting. That is where the question arises as to whether there is a blocking minority, for want of a better phrase.
My sense of the situation is that a number of member states remain resolute in their opposition. An acknowledgement from some countries that the Commission has made steps to try to make improvements around the sustainability agenda and other important aspects, including empowerment of women and making the climate provisions of the Paris Agreement much more binding, would be helpful. There have been good efforts but I am sure we have not reached the level of clarification and assurance we in Ireland require. That work continues. I am also sure that is the position of a number of member states. There are some who seem to have a position that is somewhat evolving on this situation.
In the interim, my Department and other relevant Departments are continuing their own detailed analyses, continuing to consult with other member states and seeking further clarification and information from the Commission. It is expected that the Commission will present the final agreement package either late in quarter 2, which could be next month, or early in quarter 3, which would be after the summer recess.
The Tánaiste has indicated that we will have some element of clarification by the end of quarter 2 as to what the agreement looks like but we still do not have clarity as to how agreement is to be determined. The Tánaiste is promising the State will be resolute in the sense of what we understand this agreement to be. Mercosur is utterly unacceptable and I cannot see how there will be any movement in that respect. I assume, on the basis of what the Tánaiste said, that the European Commission has not offered, by way of this clarification, that there can be real wins from our point of view. Beyond that, it is a case of maintaining a relationship with those member states that have similar positions and ensuring we look after Irish farming and opposing any agreement that would be detrimental to it. At this point, we have a promise from the Tánaiste and the Government in that regard.
The Tánaiste made reference to CETA. Most of the parts of that trade agreement are in operation. Our big fear is the investor court system and the chilling impact it has had across the board.
I will say more on CETA another time when we can have a proper debate. If we cannot ratify a free trade agreement with Canada in the middle of all the turbulence that is going on in the world, I am concerned. I cannot think of a better, less offensive nation to trade with and have a trade agreement with than Canada. Let us have that debate when the time comes. It is for another day. The Deputy provoked me there.
I want to make a broader point regarding Mercosur, which is that free trade is a really good thing. I say that as Minister with responsibility for trade. The IFA is a member of the Government trade forum. Most of what Irish farmers produce is exported and I want them to have lots of places where they can sell their produce. It is some of the best produce in the world, we are proud of it and it is an important part of our economic model. I made the point at the recent working lunch of the Foreign Affairs Council's trade configuration that Europe, including its member states and the Commission, must get better at working out how we can engage with farmers and the agriculture sector earlier on in the process. Otherwise, this issue will arise time and again as we seek to make other free trade agreements.
Our position on Mercosur is outlined in the programme for Government. I am not changing it or deviating from it. I ask the Deputy, please, not to think I am. However, as we go forward, we must look at how we can involve farmers and the agriculture sector in protecting their interests much earlier in the process in order that we do not end up with a trade agreement that has good elements but leaves us asking, "What about the farmers?" That is not a clever way for us to proceed. We will want and need more free trade agreements and we must think about how we bring farmers and their interests with us from the start of the process rather than getting to the end and wondering whether there is any way to make it work for farmers. That sequencing is completely wrong.
We will continue to engage on Mercosur with like-minded countries. Our programme for Government commitment still stands. The IFA is on the Government trade forum, which gives it a seat at the table in terms of trade policy and stakeholder engagement as we go forward. Europe really needs to crack this issue because we need more free trade agreements and we need to work out a way of bringing farmers with us, not just in Ireland but across the European Union.
Dublin-Monaghan Bombings
175. Deputy Shane Moynihan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his recent engagement with the British Government regarding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27324/25]
As we have discussed previously, 51 years have passed since the dreadful events of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in which 33 people lost their lives and hundreds more, including family members of constituents of mine, were injured both physically and mentally. In a week when we spoke in the Dáil about the importance of seeking truth and answers for loved ones, it is very much a fact that the families of victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings do not have justice and do not have the full truth. I look forward to hearing how the Tánaiste is engaging with the UK Government on this matter.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and for consistently keeping it on the agenda in his time in the House. It is important that is done. Earlier this month, as he noted, we marked the 51st anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974. Those brutal attacks claimed the lives of 34 people, including an unborn baby, injured hundreds more and shocked the country to its core. More than five decades on, it remains deeply regrettable, to put it mildly, that no person has been held responsible for the attacks.
This House has unanimously supported four all-party motions calling on the British Government to allow access by an independent international judicial figure to all original documents relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The absence of a substantive response from the British Government to date in respect of those requests is a matter of great concern. I raised this directly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at our first in-person meeting here in Dublin. It was also raised by the Minister for Justice and me on 24 April at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference at Hillsborough Castle. I will continue to raise this issue and take the clearly expressed will of this House forward in all future engagements.
In line with the commitment in the programme for Government to address the legacy of the conflict in this jurisdiction, the Government remains committed to finding truth and justice for the victims' families and the survivors of these heinous attacks. We continue to make every effort to facilitate co-operation with legacy investigation bodies outside of this jurisdiction, such as Operation Denton and Operation Newham under the Kenova body of work. We eagerly await the publication of the Operation Denton report in the coming months in the hope it will provide families and survivors with long-awaited answers. It is important to reiterate that the investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings remains an open case in this jurisdiction. Any new evidence that comes to light, from whatever source, will be fully and rigorously pursued by the Garda authorities.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Tánaiste as a fhreagra. As he noted, four all-party motions were passed by the House, in 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2016, urging full co-operation from the British Government. It seems the citation of national security as grounds not to enable that co-operation is held up as a flag. He mentioned Operation Denton, which is a welcome development in terms of investigating unresolved killings during the Troubles. I note that An Garda Síochána has co-operated with Operation Denton. It is important that this co-operation be reciprocated by the British Government in terms of the access to documents and details that is needed. The victims of these tragedies have gone for decades with unanswered questions about the truth of what happened on that dreadful day, which does not help them in any way to find closure for their grief. I urge the Tánaiste to continue his engagement with the British Government and to challenge its citation of national security as a grounds upon which not to co-operate with the investigation into these killings.
I agree with everything the Deputy said on this matter. I fully acknowledge that very country has a right, even an obligation, in regard to its national security. However, that cannot become a cover for not providing assistance that could and should be provided. This House and successive Governments have constructively put forward proposals as to how that access to information could be provided. Not much is unanimously agreed in here but the Dáil has unanimously adopted four all-party motions calling on the British Government to look afresh at our urgent request. We did so in 2008, 2011, 2016 and 2024. The motions called on the British Government to allow access by an independent international judicial figure. We thought that was the way forward.
My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, and I continue at every opportunity to pursue this matter. The Deputy is right that we want to get to an agreement in terms of a framework on legacy, whereby truth, reconciliation and justice can be accessed by people right across this island. It would be extraordinarily helpful for the British Government to recognise the express wish of this House and come forward with that information.
The Tánaiste is entirely right. Government and Members of the Dáil owe it to the victims of those attacks to continually press the British Government on its use of national security as a shield for withholding that documentation. Will the Tánaiste directly challenge the British Government in his interactions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other members of the British Government on its use of national security to withhold documents? Will he give an assurance that victims' voices remain central to any engagement with the British Government regarding not only this set of tragedies but the wider legacy piece and if the Government has been given access to any preliminary findings from Operation Denton or any further insight into when the report of Operation Denton will be published?
I do not have specific insights into provisional findings from Operation Denton. I know it is hoped the report will appear in the coming months. We all hope this provides families and survivors with much-needed answers. I will continue to make the point, as will the Minister for Justice, regarding the importance of this information being provided and, more broadly, the issue of legacy. The Irish Government wants two things to happen with regard to legacy. We want a legacy infrastructure that is human rights-compliant and we want something that can bring victims and survivors, or at least as many of them as possible, with the process. Neither of those circumstances exist with the Legacy Act. There is really good and intensive engagement between the two Governments - my Department and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn. I am hopeful - it is not guaranteed - we can try to reach a landing zone in the coming weeks that could see us take an important step forward on legacy, which would be so important to so many people across this island.
Question No. 176 taken with Question No. 174.
Northern Ireland
177. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the efforts being made by his Department and the Government to put pressure on the British Government to get a public inquiry in place around the murder of a person (details supplied) in Bellaghy, County Derry. [26774/25]
243. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to report on his recent engagement with the family of a person (details supplied) and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27220/25]
What pressure has been put on the British Government regarding a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown, a GAA official, on 19 April 1997 at Drumanee Road in Bellaghy when he was closing the GAA club? This was a hard-working member of the local community who had done significant voluntary work on behalf of the GAA and in the community and was highly respected. I know from people living on Drumanee Road at the time that there was shock and horror in that area and the wider Bellaghy area at what happened.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 177 and 243 together.
I met with Sean Brown's family just over two weeks ago on what was the 28th anniversary of his murder. I was struck by Bridie Brown and her family and the anguish, pain and hurt they have been put through. The family have shown enormous strength and resilience in pursuing this case. I commended them on their tireless campaign for truth, transparency and accountability over the past 28 years. I reiterated to them that I will continue to use any influence I have, now and at every point, and that of the Irish Government to bring about a resolution that is acceptable to them. They want a public inquiry, they deserve a public inquiry and they need a public inquiry.
The various investigations conducted since the murder have failed to provide the answers needed by the Brown family and they have waited too long for the truth. I raised the case of Sean Brown with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in our first call after I took office in January as well as in a number of subsequent calls, most recently at the end of last week. I also discussed the issues with Secretary of State Benn at the meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference at Hillsborough Castle last month.
As I said when I was in Belfast last week to meet with the party leaders, it has been the long-established position of the Irish Government that the Brown family must have access to a mechanism that is compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is something that has never been provided to them. This is not just my view. It is also the view of the courts. The courts in Northern Ireland have made clear their view that the Independent Commission on Reconciliation and Information Recovery as established by the UK Legacy Act cannot offer that remedy and that a public inquiry is currently the only mechanism available that can do so.
This case is exceptional in a number of respects. I know there is a lot of hurt and a lot of victims and unanswered questions in terms of truth, justice and accountability in Northern Ireland, but this case has exceptional characteristics. These include the rulings of the Northern Ireland High Court and Court of Appeal which identify a public inquiry as the only remedy; the material released by the Coroner's Court linking agents of the UK state to the murder; and the repeated frustration of a thorough investigation of the case by state agencies. These are important elements. My Department participated in the supervision of a review of the case following the report of the Police Ombudsman, which did not receive the information subsequently found by the coroner. Information was withheld from the various investigations to date. I will continue to raise this case with the Secretary of State in my discussions with him and to keep in close contact with the Brown family, their representatives and political representatives in this House and Northern Ireland, for whom I know this is an issue of the utmost importance, as it is for me.
I am happy to hear about the Tánaiste's engagements on this issue. I mentioned that Sean Brown had a great reputation locally as a hard-working member of the local community and throughout the country with regard to the GAA. I commend the GAA on taking up this issue and the thousands of people who filled the roads and streets around Bellaghy in recent weeks. There was evidence of collusion. He was abducted and carried in a convoy that passed under cameras at Toomebridge RUC station. This fits in with the British counterinsurgency strategy that was set out by Frank Kitson 30 years earlier. It is sad to say that. It was the tail end of it. You were put up against the Good Friday Agreement. It was a clear strategy to lower the demands of the nationalist community. It would carry out these actions but keep them at arm's length. Great credit is due to the family. I urge the Tánaiste to throw everything he can at North-South meetings and intergovernmental conferences. Will he confirm whether the Taoiseach has taken it up with Keir Starmer? We do have proper relations between Great Britain and Ireland with the new British Government, which is welcome. It is better than it was. A number of matters are now being dealt with that had not been dealt with for a number of years.
Up to 25 people, including British state agents, could be linked to this murder. We know that surveillance was lifted for agents under surveillance. We know there are a significant number of issues regarding absolute collusion. I agree with what was said earlier. This was British state policy in Ireland. It was a matter of taking out Irish citizens. We commend the family of Sean Brown, Bellaghy GAA and the wider GAA. The Tánaiste is talking about supporting a full public inquiry as directed by the British courts. When the Taoiseach spoke about this previously, he conflated it to some degree with repealing the British Government's action with regard to the Legacy Act. This would not be sufficient for the family and a number of us in here. I welcome what the Tánaiste said so could I get some reiteration regarding that? How will we put pressure on the British Government regarding delivering for Sean Brown and his family, who have been failed over many years?
I join the Deputies in commending Bellaghy GAA and the GAA more widely. The president of the GAA, Jarlath Burns, attended the meeting with the Brown family when they came to see me. Sean Brown was a good, decent man locking up his GAA club when he was brutally murdered 28 years ago. Not only have no answers been given to his family and no Article 2-compliant investigation established, there have been clear active efforts to suppress information. It is also very clear from the rulings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that a full public inquiry is required and the involvement of agents of the UK state with regard to the murder of Sean Brown needs to be answered for. The family needs those answers. The Taoiseach and I are ad idem on this. I am quite sure the Taoiseach has raised it with the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach and I have discussed it on a number of occasions. The Irish Government feels very strongly about this. At the moment, it is a statement of fact there is no available mechanism that is Article 2 human rights-compliant other than a public inquiry. Bridie Brown is in her late eighties. She deserves answers about the murder of her husband.
I will continue, as will the Government, to make that point at every opportunity in our engagements, including all our engagements with the UK Government.
As regards legacy more broadly, I hope that in the coming weeks we can reach a framework such that the two Governments can say, "This is a good way forward on the issue of legacy across this island." That will be a very significant moment for victims and families. I met a number of victims' groups yesterday on this. I met all the parties in Northern Ireland on this last Monday in Stormont, and we are working intensively to see if we can find a way forward.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.