I thank the Minister of State for taking this Topical Issue. I refer to the long period people have to wait for a social welfare appeal to be decided. As the Minister of State knows, this places huge stress on individuals and families who are waiting for decisions to be made. Invalidity pensions, domiciliary care allowance and carer's allowance are some of the applications subject to very lengthy appeal periods, as I know from my constituency office. As the Minister of State knows, anybody who applies for an invalidity pension is doing so because they are not fit to work on health grounds over a long-term period. Therefore, they need a decision as quickly as possible on their eligibility for the invalidity pension. People are applying for this payment because they need it, but in many cases it is taking up to eight, nine or even ten months for decisions to be made on appeals for applications. As we know full well, domiciliary care allowance is a payment to families where there is a child under 16 years of age with a severe disability. It is not a means-tested payment, but rather a payment based on the disability of the child. Again, the appeals period can be very lengthy. Unfortunately, this places huge stress on families while waiting for an appeal a decision on an appeal to be made. Similarly, in many cases of applications for the domiciliary care allowance and the care allowance, people in a household reduce their working hours and may have to give up work entirely in order to stay at home to care for a loved one. They need this payment very badly and, in many cases, urgently. Unfortunately, as I have said, an appeal can take up to eight or nine months in some cases. This is totally unacceptable. I am sure the Minister of State will agree it is unacceptable. There is a double standard here because when an applicant gets a decision on the initial application, there is a very tight window to make an appeal. It is quite a strict deadline and there is very little wriggle room for the applicant to surpass it. Yet, once the appeal goes into the system there appears to be an open-ended period for the Department to make a decision on an appeal. This double standard needs to be corrected. There needs to be a strict timeline for appeals to be dealt with. I recognise the Minister, Deputy Calleary, has tried to improve the situation. I am aware there is recruitment of additional staff to try to address the issue. This is very welcome but there should be a strict timeline for dealing with appeals. I do not think it is acceptable that people have to wait so long for decisions to come through. Whether or not they are approved, ultimately people should be informed of the decision within a reasonable timeframe. I sincerely hope the Minister of State will take back to the Department the message that decisions should be made within a reasonable timeframe to reduce the stress, anxiety and frustration of many individuals and families. Many Members of the House have heard about this through their constituency clinics and constituency offices. I thank the Minister of State again for being here and I sincerely hope she can take this message back loud and clear.

I thank Deputy McGrath. I am happy to respond on behalf of the Minister. The social welfare appeals office is an office of the Department of Social Protection which is responsible for determining appeals against decisions in relation to social welfare entitlements. Appeals officers are independent in their decision-making functions. The overall average processing time for all appeals at end of March 9025 was 20.9 weeks. The time taken to process an appeal includes all aspects of the appeal process. This includes an initial validation of the appeal to ensure that adequate grounds have been provided, followed by a referral of the appeal back to the relevant scheme area of the Department for review. Where the first instance decision is not revised in favour of the appellant, the appeal is then considered by the appeals officer, which may require the holding of an oral hearing. A significant proportion of cases are revised by the Department in favour of the appellant during the review process. This does not mean that the initial decision was incorrect. A decision can be revised because the person making an appeal provides additional information which was not made available when the decision was first made. Where new information, in particular medical information, is provided on appeal, this may require further investigation which can add to the time taken to process an appeal. Despite all of this, the overall average processing time for all appeals at the end of March was 20.9 weeks. Deputy McGrath will be pleased to hear that new appeal regulations, which have come into effect from 28 April 2025, have increased the time a customer has to submit their appeal from 21 to 60 days, with provision for the chief appeals officer to accept late appeals for up to 180 days in certain circumstances. This will allow customers a longer period to prepare their appeal and gather relevant documentation. The new regulations also provide, for the first time, statutory time limits for key stages of the appeals process, including the length of time the scheme area in the Department has to review an appeal. This is now set at 21 days. The new regulations have also introduced the right to seek an oral hearing. These measures are intended to provide greater transparency and certainty to people making appeals and should help to improve the processing times for appeals. In addition, a new appeals business process and IT system have recently been implemented. The new process and system have significantly reduced the use of paper in the appeals process. The new system provides online capabilities to provide a more efficient and streamlined service for people availing of services. In tandem with the introduction of the new system, the number of staff processing appeals has increased significantly. As Deputy McGrath alluded to, an additional 20 appeals officers were appointed at the end of last year. These officers are in addition to the team of 44 officers already in place. Following a period of training they are now actively processing appeals. This is a significant increase of 45% in staffing levels and will, in time, reduce processing times. The Minister, Deputy Calleary, has met with the appeals team to discuss the measures to reduce appeals processing times and will continue to engage with officials on a regular basis.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I welcome some of the reply regarding some of the improvements already in train. I very much welcome that the Minister, Deputy Calleary, has met the appeals team and additional staff are now being employed, bringing the total number of staff to 64. This is certainly welcome. With regard to the new appeals regulations, there are positive changes in terms of the applicant having a longer period to make an appeal, and that it could potentially be up to 180 days, at the discretion of the appeals officer. These are welcome changes but they do not necessarily set a specific timeline for decision on an appeal. I know the Minister of State said there are statutory timelines for various stages of the appeal but, ultimately, people want to hear the final decision on whether an appeal is successful. The additional staff are welcome and I hope we will move to a point whereby appeals are decided within a reasonable timeframe. The average of 20 weeks is too high. Unfortunately it is an average, which necessarily means some take much longer than this. This means people are waiting for long periods for a decision to be made. I welcome the reply. Changes are afoot, which is welcome but this is an issue that must be continually kept under review so we can reduce the appeal period so that people can get decisions within a reasonable and proportionate timeframe.

I thank Deputy McGrath. I listened with interest to the points he has made. I thank him for highlighting this issue. It is important the appeals process not only works quickly but with due regard to ensuring each case is properly considered. In the first instance, each appeal is referred back to the relevant claim area of the Department which reviews the appeal, including taking account of any new information that may be furnished. This is an important step, as many appeals can be determined quickly upon review by a scheme deciding officer. In order to ensure this process works quickly and transparently, the new appeals regulations set, for the first time, statutory time limits of 21 days for consideration of the appeal by the Department. Where the scheme area does not change the decision, the case is then considered by an appeals officer. This, of necessity, requires a full consideration of all information, including, in some cases, the use of oral hearings. The chief appeals officer continues to closely monitor processing times and every effort is made to reduce the time taken to process an appeal. However, the drive for efficiency must be balanced with the competing demand to ensure decisions are consistent and made in accordance with the provisions set out in primary legislation and regulation. Significant efforts and resources have been devoted to reforming and streamlining the appeals process in recent years. The chief appeals officer has put in place measures to improve processing times. Twenty additional staff were assigned and attended training in December 2024 and January 2025. They have now been appointed as appeals officers and are making appeal decisions. In addition, a new appeals system, incorporating online functionality for people wishing to lodge an appeal, has been implemented. Together with the implementation of the new appeals regulations, this should reduce processing times.

I thank the Minister of State and I am sorry that we are dealing with this so late in the evening. What action is the Department of higher education taking to increase the number of dental training places in our universities? This is in view of the fact that no increase has occurred in the past 25 years while the population of the country has increased by 1.6 million people. Moreover, will the Minister of State explain why 44% of training places in our universities are made available to non-EU students? I will give the figures for final year students in Trinity College Dublin: 46 students, of which 25 are Irish or EU students and 21 are non-EU students. In University College Cork, there are 61 students of which 25 are EU students, which includes Irish students, and 36 are non-EU students. They are the figures for final year in our colleges. We have a huge increase in population and we have not responded. To give an idea about treatment, in 2012, 394,399 availed of it under the public health service. In 2023, the figure was 283,000. That is down more than 100,000. In 2012, there were 1,432 dentists offering to provide dental care under the public scheme. In 2024, it was down to 810, yet our population had increased dramatically. There is also an additional issue in that we now have an older population. Going back 30 or 40 years, most older people tended to have dentures. That has now totally changed so there are now more older people who require dental treatment as well. The Department of Health has acknowledged that there are 2,420 dentists in the country. That is 47 dentists per 100,000 people or one dentist per 2,125 people. We need to forward plan. Even if, in the morning, we decided to increase the number of places, it would still take five years before the students would be out there. There is an easy way to deal with this and the Irish Dental Association has already set it out quite clearly. The places are there but we are giving them to non-EU students. We need to decrease the number of non-EU students and increase the number of Irish and other EU students. We do not have to put extra money into it, except to replace the money the colleges are getting from non-EU students with money from the Department so we can improve and increase the number of training places available. It is not that we have to build new structures or provide more equipment. We do not. It is already there. The Irish Dental Association has suggested that we decrease the number of non-EU students to 20%. It did not say to cut them out completely but to reduce the number. We have to give more funding. I do not care what answer the Department gives tonight. This has been put on the back burner for far too long. We were to build a new dental school in Cork, we had identified a site, we got the planning permission, funding was not available and the whole project was abandoned. Now we are in a scenario where we have population growth, people are living longer and we do not have the dentists to look after them. Now is the time to take action and we need to take it before 1 September.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter regarding the availability of dental training places, which I will take on behalf of the Minister. This Government is firmly committed to ensuring our healthcare system is supported by a steady and sustainable pipeline of highly skilled graduates. The Department, in collaboration with the Department of Health, the Higher Education Authority, HEA, and higher education institutions, HEIs, plays a central role in delivering the education and training infrastructure needed to meet the evolving demands of the healthcare workforce, including in critical areas such as oral healthcare and dentistry. Ensuring adequate capacity to train future dentists is part of our broader commitment to workforce planning that supports the health and well-being of our population. Until this year, approximately 60 places were available each year to Irish and EU students on dentistry courses. The Department recognises that this represents a limited training pipeline at a time when the demand for oral healthcare, both clinical and preventative, is increasing nationally. The number of places offered is a matter for the higher education institutions, in line with their autonomy. However, I acknowledge that due to a high level of practical work, there can be material constraints on the number of students that can be accepted onto dentistry courses. While the Department does not set quotas for student places, we work closely with the Department of Health and the HEA to explore how capacity can be sustainably expanded in key health disciplines, including dentistry. In 2023, the HEA carried out a targeted capacity expansion exercise across priority healthcare areas. One key outcome was the establishment of new dentistry programmes, including a new bachelor of dental surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI, commencing in 2025. This new programme will follow a community-based model of dental education and will provide at least 20 new dentistry places per annum for Irish and EEA students, significantly enhancing national training capacity. This expansion represents a landmark 33% increase in student intake and clearly demonstrates the Department’s and this Government’s firm commitment to strengthening the oral healthcare workforce and supplying the graduates needed for a modern, accessible health system. I reaffirm the Department’s commitment to working with all relevant stakeholders to ensure any future expansion of dental education is grounded in evidence, responds to national needs and is delivered in a sustainable manner. It is my understanding that the Department of Health is conducting a scoping exercise to support a skills assessment workforce census across the oral healthcare sector. This will form the foundation for future policy and programme development. The Department stands ready to work with HEIs and the Department of Health to ensure any changes to professional scope are matched with appropriate and high-quality educational provision. I have been informed that the Department of Health is also examining the feasibility of a new mid-level oral health professional grade. The outcomes of this work, which is due to be published shortly, may have further implications for the number and type of training places needed in the coming years across oral healthcare.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I would like clarity on the RCSI. Will those students be fee-paying students or is will they come under the education system and be the same as any other students? I always thought that RCSI was full of fee-paying students. Second, an extra 20 places is not sufficient and the figures show that. The number of dentists now offering public services has decreased from slightly more than 1,400 down to 810. We have lost 600 and we will lose another 200 to 300 in the coming months with the way things are going. The other issue is that there are now fewer dentists working with the HSE compared with four years ago. There are 30 fewer dentists working with the HSE. This is not a situation that will be resolved by 20 new places. There is an easy way to deal with this, and I have set it out already: reduce the number of training places for non-EU students in our colleges and increase the number of Irish students. It is easy to do. No extra funding is needed except additional money to be provided to the colleges to provide those training places. If the number in UCC is reduced from 38 to 18, for example, the money for the 18 then being taken in as Irish students needs to be made up. It has to be looked at. I love these expressions that a scoping exercise will be done or something is being examined. The figures are there. There is no need for any examination. We are short of dentists. I met a young person recently who has a disability and needed extractions. The earliest he can get an appointment in the public service is in 12 months' time. The family ended up having to pay €10,000 because, to get the extractions done, he has to have an anaesthetic and a consultant anaesthetist has to be in place. It will cost €10,000 because he could not get access to the public service. That cannot go on and, even if we start in the morning, it will be five years before the people are available.

With regard to the Deputy's question on the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, I will have to look for further information on that. I only have the information in front of me, which I have already presented to him. I will ask the Minister to follow up with the Deputy on that specific question. With regard to the dental workforce, the Deputy quoted some figures but I can only quote what is in front of me. It is my understanding from the Department of Health that the Dental Council has reported a steady increase in the number of registered dentists since 2016, from 2,949 to 3,823 today. This reflects positive progress in strengthening our dental workforce. As of 2022, there were 2,420 practising dentists in Ireland, marking a 3.9% increase from the previous year. The number of registered dentists per 1,000 population has risen from 61 in 2019 to nearly 72 today. The Deputy also mentioned something earlier about an outreach centre in north Cork. The Department of Health has received a strong proposal from University College Cork, requesting €4.7 million in capital funding to establish a dental outreach centre. This would enable training of an additional ten undergraduate dental students annually, particularly benefiting Irish and EU students. While the proposal is promising, it currently delivers limited increases in domestic student places. There is a clear opportunity for both Departments to collaborate further to maximise investment and expand domestic training capacity to meet Ireland's dental workforce needs. Discussions are currently ongoing between the Department of Health and my Department to try to progress this proposal with a view to maximising Irish and EU places to obtain value for money for this proposal.

On the issue of increase in numbers, that is because there are dentists coming in from abroad.

Deputy Burke has had his time.

I appreciate the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, coming in so late this evening. This issue relates to the increasing number of people contacting my office - and I have heard the same from other TDs in the past couple of weeks - regarding passport offices and not being able to get confirmation of signatures from Garda stations. It is causing huge distress for everyone involved in the process and creates an awful lot of work for everybody. I will give the Minister of State examples from a couple of constituents. One said they got onto the Passport Office on 19 April 2024 to see what was happening and the following Tuesday they received an email to say it could not get through to the Garda station to confirm the consent forms because the phone was not answered. It was a family member of a friend who was a member of the Garda who got the forms signed. He said the station phone is manned 24-7 and was surprised to hear this. This was very unfair to the individual and through no fault of their own, they were put at the bottom of the pile and expected to wait a further 20 days. Another constituent applied for a passport on 28 March 2025 and was advised by the Passport Office on 13 May there was an issue contacting the witness and the form would need to be signed again. On the same day, they went back to the Garda station in order for the consent form to be signed again and the Garda members were surprised to hear the office had difficulties making contact with them. We had an issue on both sides in this case. The last example relates to a ten-week-old baby whose passport was supposed to be issued last Friday but because the required witness was not contactable - and a landline number was provided - unfortunately, a whole new application was required. We all know the difficulties when something happens with a passport and we all get these contacts every single week. It starts in February and March when people contact us and they say, "I am heading off in the next week or so and I am desperately trying to get hold of a passport". I commend the Passport Office because in fairness to it, it really does its best to try to get issues resolved as quickly as possible. If anybody listens to this, I urge them to please do not book anything before they have their passport in their hands.

Preach.

This goes on every single year but people have expectations because they look at the timelines from the Passport Office and think it is brilliant, they will have plenty of time within the timeline but unfortunately, once you get one simple issue like this, it throws the whole process into disarray and delays it for a very long time. I am very interested to hear how we can resolve this - something around digitisation or modernising the process - because it seems a little archaic in this day and age to have the Passport Office ringing up a Garda station where a garda then goes to the big book and searches to see if the signature has been put in correctly. Sometimes there is a mistake where it can be put in incorrectly, which can cause problems. I will leave it at that for the moment.

I am delighted to take this question from Deputy Donnelly and I appreciate the constructive manner that it is placed and hopefully I will be able to reply in an equally constructive manner. I will skip over some of the introductory remarks, which he will receive to his place shortly - because the Deputy knows himself the Passport Office is working extremely hard on delivering overall, with 440,000 passports issued so far this year alone. More pertinent to the question the Deputy has raised, passport online was introduced in 2017 and since then, adults renewing their passports through the Passport Office are not required to submit a witnessed identity form. Online child renewal applications can be witnessed by members of many professions, including school teachers, doctors, elected representatives and gardaí. I dare say everyone in this House has witnessed at least one passport form in the past week. Certain passport application forms for applicants resident in Ireland, however, are required to be witnessed by a member of An Garda Síochána. For the interest of the House, these applications are post passport, first-time adult online and first-time child online. The witnessing of these application forms is a vital element of the identity verification process as it provides initial assurance to the passport service that the person in the photograph is the same person presenting to submit the form. With applications for a minor, which is particularly important, the witnessing of this form provides evidence guardians have given consent for a passport to be issued to the child. To protect the rights of parents or guardians and children, it is important that forms are correctly completed. As I mentioned previously, child online renewal applications can be witnessed by a range of professions; not just gardaí. When a garda does witness an application, it is the responsibility of the witnessing garda to ensure the signature is correctly recorded in their station logbook in order that when the passport service calls, the signature can be verified. Only 17% of all applications require a Garda witness. In these cases, the passport service calls the relevant station to confirm the garda recorded the form in their logbook. The passport service is not required to directly speak to the witnessing garda. Passport service staff call the Garda station up to three times to verify the signature. Passport applications are checked by experienced entitlement officers who endeavour to maintain up-to-date records of the opening hours of Garda stations. Where the passport service cannot reach the Garda station after three attempts, the relevant superintendent’s office can be contacted to verify the details. If the passport service is unable to verify the witness after these steps have been taken, only then will a new witnessed form be requested from the applicant. The passport service is continuously looking, however, at ways to make the application process easier for applicants, including the enhancement of digital services, and would therefore welcome the digitisation of the records maintained by An Garda Síochána when witnessing applications. Currently, there is a general update of passport service policies in the context of the ongoing programme of passport service reform. This reform programme focuses on the future of service delivery by implementing projects which enhance the customer experience while maintaining the integrity of the Irish passport. Where viable, we will look at all potential options for modernising the facility but I cannot understate enough that officially, the Irish passport is the best ranked passport in the world. It is number one – not one of 100 – number one. There are a couple of things that go into that. First, it has access to various jurisdictions vis-à-vis travel and access to the European free market, which is great but really the main deciding feature is the veracity of the Irish passport. It is impossible to forge and that is specifically important when we talk about applications for children and protecting minors in that service. While the system may seem a little onerous, it is there for good reason. That does not, however, preclude options for completely and continuously improving it as we saw from the original introduction of the online service in 2017. As I said, I am more than happy to work, particularly with Deputy Donnelly, on how we can improve this system.

I appreciate the answer. What surprises me is the figure given of 17% of passports when, just in the past couple of weeks, I have had at least four or five people come to me. I have listened to a couple of other Deputies raising this issue as well, one from the Minister of State's own party during, I think, Questions on Policy or Legislation. It most definitely is an issue, but not with the Passport Office, because it does its due diligence and I understand that. Whenever people call the office about a passport, I hope it is not a first passport. I always know that if it is, it will be very difficult to try to resolve. Unfortunately, people sometimes do not understand until it is explained to them the importance of ensuring the veracity of the applicant and making sure this is real. Once a person gets their first passport, it then naturally follows on, so they have to get that piece right. I entirely agree that all of the checks and balances need to happen so that we ensure, as the Minister of State has said, that the Irish passport remains the number one. The Minister of State talking about the Irish passport being number one reminds me of something. About ten or 12 years ago, agents of Mossad, the Israeli security service were caught with Irish passports. This relates to the previous debate we had in relation to that country. There is something we have to look at and we have to ensure that the system works. It is a stressful time for people and we have to try to make it as easy as we possibly can for them, the Passport Office and the Garda. We have to make sure there is not a waste of time or energy. We have to try to get it digitised in some way so that the checks can be done much more quickly and more easily and we do not have the situation where, unfortunately, people like this are left struggling, ringing our offices trying to get it sorted.

I will reply on two issues. Where an Irish passport is tampered with, it tends not to be a forged or made-up document. It tends to be a stolen passport which someone uses to try to assume the identity of the owner and by trying to say they look like the person in the photo. That is how good the Irish passport is. The Deputy referred to an incident from ten or 12 years ago. I can assure him that things are greatly different now. Hence, the number one status, which has been achieved by 500 amazing staff in Balbriggan who I was very lucky to visit with Deputy Grace Boland a couple of weeks ago. As a personal observation as much as anything else, and the Deputy and I have been in this House for the same amount of time so I do not pretend to be an oracle on this, if a person is contacting their TD about any issue, it is generally the last-chance saloon. People get pretty desperate and sometimes there have been failings in the systems and sometimes the person is that anomaly. As I mentioned, only 17% of applications require Garda witnessing. So far, 440,000 applications have been processed, so 17% of 440,000 equates to 23,000, last week alone. There will always be a few where the Garda station cannot be contacted three times or the superintendent cannot be contacted and then, eventually, it has to go back. If that is to happen to a person who is one of those who does everything the Deputy and I would say to them not to do, such as book travel, particularly for a child, without a valid passport, the first place the person will turn to, if not the parish priest, is probably their local TD, in search of divine or political intervention. That is not to take away from the stress and the fact this does not absolve us from our responsibility to constantly improve the customer-facing role of the Passport Office. It is exceptional and possibly the best service in the State. Post Covid, we had a lot of debates about that and we do not have them anymore. I repeat that we will welcome any opportunity for An Garda Síochána to digitise its records. We maintain a good relationship with An Garda Síochána, and where we can work more closely together and where the Deputy can feed in this level of constructive criticism, I see no reason not to take it on board.

The Minister of State's colleague and my constituency colleague, the Minister of State, Emer Higgins, said a while back that efficient use of public resources contributes to better delivery of services for our citizens. Obviously, the Minister of State present cannot disagree with that. It makes a lot of sense. The Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, mentioned she had launched a public consultation in March to ensure all those with an interest in the future direction of public procurement have an opportunity to inform the strategy. The consultation included an online survey and there was a lot of talk about three regional roadshows. I am not here to just criticise the Government, throw stones and make points. I am looking for some constructive engagement. We have a lot of small businesses, start-ups and public buyers from all sectors, and anything that makes the process easier is a good idea. A lot of the talk about procurement, and when I talk about public procurement, I am obviously talking about the State but equally about local authorities, and a lot of the stuff that is always in the news is the likes of the children's hospital, which has consistently gone over budget, has been delayed time and again and goes on and on. However, multiply that one hundredfold in terms of all the little, or not so little, projects around the country that have either run up huge costs, not been delivered properly, or not been delivered on time. When we are looking at the Government's national procurement strategy, and I acknowledge the European Union legislation on tenders comes in to play here as well, and we have an input into that, we need to get a lot tighter on ensuring the dodgy companies do not get the tenders in the first place. If we take the likes of BAM, for example, it was in the news in the UK and Ireland before for failures with the concrete used in school buildings, but I never saw a penalty clause enacted so that companies like this would find it more difficult or would be barred for a period from putting their names forward for contracts. Surely if a company has tarnished its reputation, it should be put on the sideline and given a yellow card or a red card. In that context, I note the Construction Industry Federation has been charged with moving the procurement thing along. Last November, it produced its strategy document for the improved delivery of public infrastructure, Fair and Balanced Reform of Public Procurement in Ireland. Even though it is an organisation that is getting involved in doing something that benefits its constituent members, there is a lot of very good recommendations within its document. There is nothing that puts it more in focus and says what the ordinary person might think than, if there is someone not doing something well, there need to be consequences. I know some work has been done in the area from a legislative point of view, including from Senator Alice-Mary Higgins and a number of colleagues, which was the Quality in Public Procurement (Contract Preparation and Award Criteria) Bill 2021. I note the Bill is only up for Second Stage in the Dáil in 2025, so it has been a long time coming. One of the Minister of State's predecessors had issues with putting conditions on projects where more than 50% would be criteria other than price. For too long, we have been looking at either the lowest price or the quickest job without looking at the overall economic benefit, because this comes into play, and I will talk about his after I hear the Minister of State's reply, years later when we work out if a particular tender was a good one and whether it provided a good service to the State in terms of the money we put in.

I thank Deputy Gogarty for raising this matter and I am responding on behalf of the Minister. Public procurement is governed by EU and national rules. The aim of these rules is to promote an open, competitive and non-discriminatory public procurement regime which delivers transparency and value for money outcomes, which the Deputy referred to. With respect to public works, the capital works management framework, CWMF is the structure that has been developed to deliver the Government’s objectives regarding public sector construction procurement reform. The CWMF suite of contracts contain clear requirements with respect to performance and delivery, whereas the project-specific aspects such as scope, design and technical specifications are matters for the contracting authority to determine. The CWMF also provides a suite of guidance material covering all aspects of project delivery. Other contracts, such as the NEC, might be used on larger infrastructure projects. An applicant's eligibility to participate in public procurement competitions must be determined in a manner that meets the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and mutual recognition. Criteria for qualitative selection are defined in the EU procurement directive. When carrying out procurement procedures, contracting authorities already have discretion to exclude tenderers from competing in a public procurement competition for reasons set out in Regulation 57 of SI 284 of 2016 - European Union (Award of Public Authority Contracts) Regulations 2016. This includes poor past performance where the tenderer has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in a prior public contract which led to termination, damages or other comparable sanctions. However, suppliers must not be excluded if they have provided sufficient evidence of reform, for example, payment of compensation, co-operation with investigating authorities and changes in organisation or personnel. The management of the tendering process for a public contract including the application of certain exclusion grounds and selection criteria is a matter for each contracting authority. It is the responsibility of each contracting authority to ensure that tenderers comply with all the requirements of the process. There are a number of elements already present in CWMF contracts that provide contracting authorities with the ability to manage poor performance. A consistent contract management regime is critical and clearly defined milestones should be set down for evaluation purposes. The public works contracts require payment to be made on a monthly basis for work completed to the standard specified in the contract. Where the works completed do not meet the required standard, the value of the defective work may be deducted from the payment due until the matter is rectified. Many of the larger projects also carry performance bonds which may be called upon in the event of a breach of contract. Persistent failure to comply with an instruction under the contract is a breach and may result in the bond being called upon to pay for the work necessary to make good a defect. Deputy Gogarty mentioned one or two companies but he will understand that I cannot comment on particular companies. The rules apply to all companies.

I also wish to raise the paltry bonds payable by developers for estates to ensure they are finished so that they can be taken in charge. It is such a small amount that in some areas of my constituency, 15 years later some estates have still not been taken in charge. Similarly, the bonds payable by companies for large-scale contracts are often not worth the paper they are written on. There is no incentive at all. In my county of South Dublin, several tenders have collapsed because the local authority had discretion but it possibly did not go as heavy as it could with the rules that were in place. I also contend that there are a lot of loopholes in the rules. I was inspired to raise this issue tonight because of the Lucan swimming pool project. It was approved by councillors in 2018 and got delayed a little bit through Covid, but the council took its eye off the ball and it got to the stage whereby if it tried to end the contract, as there was a clause allowing for that, it would probably take longer to retender and it would cost more. The project has already gone up by between €4 million and €5 million from the original estimate. The Minister of State referred to discretion. Companies have a lot of outs, for example, where, as she mentioned, they can provide evidence of reform such as the payment of compensation, co-operation with investigating authorities and changes in organisation or personnel. I have not seen too many situations where companies have been refused point-blank on the basis that they have not sufficiently reformed or that the new group of directors is not evidence of sufficient change. Local authorities have too much discretion. First, they need to be given less discretion. At national level we need to tighten up the rules so we do not have as many outs or little clauses that they can get out of because the general population have seen the costs and time span increase and they are not happy with that. We need to get a little tougher.

Deputy Gogarty raised a number of issues in response, some of which I do not have any information on here. I know he appreciates that. One of the points he raises is the discretion of local authorities. For clarity, I will reiterate the discretionary exclusionary grounds that contracting authorities may choose to apply in cases of procurement. I am aware that I used the word "may", which chimes with the point the Deputy raises. The local authorities have the authority to do so if they wish. The grounds are: poor past performance where the candidate has shown significant or persistent deficiencies in a prior public contract which led to termination, damages or other comparable sanctions. Suppliers must not be excluded if they have provided sufficient evidence of reform, that is, the payment of compensation, co-operation with investigating authorities and changes in organisation and personnel. The maximum period of exclusion allowed is three years for discretionary exclusion grounds. I understand what the Deputy says. If there are specific questions he wishes to ask, I will ensure they are passed on to the Minister's office. Some of the issues he raises are of importance. I can see why he feels that even if the discretionary exclusion grounds are used, they might not always be as effective as we hope they could be, and that perhaps they should be used more frequently. I will not comment beyond that because these are individual cases about which I have no information.

I thank the Acting Chair for sitting so late. I also thank the Minister of State for her time here this evening. County Kildare is in desperate need of the Government's attention. Despite being the fifth most populated local authority area in the State, with a population four times larger than our neighbours in Carlow, we rarely receive the appropriate national attention required. Kildare's growth continues to outpace that of the State. Since 1991, the population in Kildare has doubled to 247,000 in 2022. lf Kildare continues to grow at such a pace, we can expect to have a population of 500,000 people by 2050. Kildare has the second youngest average age of all counties in Ireland and the fourth highest birthrate. One third of Kildare's population is aged zero to 24 years. One in four of Kildare's population is aged under 17 years. I cite the wonderful work of the All-Ireland Research Observatory, Kildare LCDC and the county council which, following census 2022, embarked on a comprehensive project to better understand Kildare. This research was published in 2024. It includes some statistics about childcare and early years education. Childcare fees in County Kildare are above the State average. Kildare has the lowest rate of community-based childcare facilitates in the State, with only 5% of services classed as community services. The national average is 24%. The rate of our neighbours in Carlow is 35%. Kildare is unique not just for its beauty, but also for its population. Communities are thriving but need and deserve Government attention. With population growth like we have seen in Kildare, it is not rocket science to understand that services and infrastructure will come under pressure. Whether it is housing, education, transport or healthcare, all too often the basics required to live and raise a family in Kildare require luck or patience to avail of them. Today, however, we are here to discuss childcare and early years services in Kildare. I again thank the Minister of State for being here to listen. I am here to advocate on behalf of the hundreds of parents in Kildare with whom I have spoken about this issue alone: young parents who have either moved to Kildare in recent years, or who themselves have grown up and proudly remain in Kildare. The common story is this. Having purchased a home or entered a tenancy agreement, the attention of the family turns to securing a place for their child in the local childcare facility. The chances are that they will be refused. I have heard stories of people taking days or weeks off work to just ring around and visit facilities in the hope of securing a place. They might be offered a spot on the waiting list but they will need to join a queue that is hundreds and hundreds long. That is no reflection on the service. I do not know of one childcare facility in Kildare that is not operating at full capacity. Nonetheless, Government policy will not fix this problem. It is time to admit how difficult it is for parents, families, the incredible workers in the sector and service providers. The previous Government’s hope of wrapping up the development of childcare facilities in strategic housing developments has failed. There are too many examples of proposed childcare facilities lying idle for months, if not years. For as long as the Government relies on the private market alone to meet what is a public good, the childcare and early years education issues that remain will only continue to worsen, specifically in County Kildare. I ask the Government to row in behind the county council, the LCDC and the childcare committee, and to put in a comprehensive public and community-based response to ensure every child and family has affordable access and an efficient service.

I thank Deputy Farrelly for raising this important issue and giving me the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister. Improving access to quality and affordable early learning and childcare is a key priority of the Government. I heard what the Deputy said about County Kildare and the specifics of the age profile in the county. In fact, at one point, I was privileged to represent County Kildare in the European Parliament and I know about some of the issues raised. I understand from what the Deputy said that this creates certain issues that perhaps are not as obvious in other parts of the country because of the age profile. We are here to discuss early learning and childcare capacity, which is increasing under this Government. Data from the annual early years sector profile 2023-2024 shows that the estimated number of enrolments increased by 19% from two years previously. The Tusla register of services demonstrates a net increase in the number of registered early learning and childcare services in 2024. However, as we know, demand for early learning and childcare remains higher than available supply, particularly for younger children and in certain parts of the country. I accept the Deputy’s point in this regard. Demand for early learning and childcare beyond sessional preschool provision is highly elastic and shaped very substantially by families' individual composition, circumstances and preferences; employment patterns and income; and the price and availability of services. Last year, a supply management unit was established in the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, and the programme for Government articulates an intention that it be resourced and transformed into a forward planning and delivery unit to identify areas of need, forecast demand and deliver public supply where required. A forward planning model is in development in the unit and will be central to the Minister’s plans to achieve the policy goals set out in the programme for Government to build an affordable, high-quality and accessible early learning and childcare system, with State-led facilities adding capacity. The Government continues to support the ongoing development and resourcing of core funding, which has given rise to a significant expansion of places since the scheme was first introduced. Core funding, which is in its third programme year, funds services based on the number of places available. This provides stability to services and reduces the risk associated with opening a new service or expanding an already existing service. The Government is also supporting the expansion of capacity through capital funding. The building blocks extension grant scheme is designed to increase capacity in the one to three-year-old, early childhood care and education age range for full day care. Core funding partner services could apply for capital funding to physically extend their premises or to construct or purchase new premises. The Minister was delighted to announce earlier this month the 49 applications that will be progressing to the next stage of the building blocks extension grant scheme. These 49 applications come from a mix of community extension, private extension, community purchasing and community construction projects. When completed, these projects will deliver almost 1,500 additional full-time childcare places for one to three-year-olds. Three services in County Kildare were among those that were successful and will progress to the next stage of the process.

I thank the Minister of State for that comprehensive reply, which I appreciate. I am certainly struck by the piece regarding the forward planning model, which is something I and other colleagues on the children committee will be looking for more detail on. It would add breadth and meat to the bones of how the programme for Government is going to achieve its ambitious targets with regard to childcare and early years education. The Minister of State appropriately summed up that the issues are comprehensive. Since becoming the spokesperson for my party on children, I have met many different stakeholders with regard to childcare and early years education. The theme has been consistent throughout those meetings. What we often have from the Government is a commitment to funding, which is to be applauded, but what is lacking is a vision for the future of childcare. If the Minister of State takes one thing away to the Department on my behalf, it is that the children committee, or even a special committee, could be assigned by the Government to support that mapping piece with regard to a vision for the future of childcare and early years education that is cognisant of all of the factors the Minister of State raised in her response being captured. This could come back again, much like Sláintecare has done with regard to healthcare. If something similar could be captured in the life of the Thirty-fourth Dáil, it would be a real opportunity for us as a cross-party initiative. I again thank the Minister of State and the Government for such a comprehensive reply and for the opportunity to speak on this issue. It is greatly appreciated.

I thank the Deputy and I hear what he has said. He spoke about vision. What I can say is that the Government is committed to building an affordable, high-quality and accessible early learning and childcare system. Although the Deputy said it is not enough, the programme for Government commits for the first time to provide capital investment to build or purchase State-owned early learning and childcare facilities to create additional capacity in areas where unmet need exists. State ownership of facilities is a substantial and significant development and offers the potential for much greater scope to influence the nature and volume of provision available and to ensure better alignment with estimated demand. Some early scoping work has been carried out to explore options to introduce a segment of public provision. This will require much more detailed and extensive policy development and design in order to progress to implementation stage, having regard to the wider emerging policy context as set out in the programme for Government. The Department funds 30 city or county childcare committees, which provide support and assist families and early learning and childcare providers. The network of 30 city or county childcare committees can assist in identifying vacant places in services for children and families who need them and engage proactively with services to explore possibilities for expansion among services, particularly where there is unmet need. Parents experiencing difficulty in relation to their early learning and childcare needs should contact their local city or county childcare committee for assistance. I hope the response has been of some assistance to the Deputy.