I am taking all four.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I thank the Deputy. The letter from the constituent clearly describes a man who is absolutely dedicated to his profession, well respected in his community and has for decades provided healthcare for the people of that community. The Deputy has explained well how restrictions, especially in terms of indemnity being provided from private insurers but also the HSE policy he referenced, can impact his wanting to provide further healthcare for the community. I have been asked by the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, to outline the current policy and I hope we can have a further discussion after that. GPs are private practitioners, most of whom hold contracts with the HSE for the provision of public health services. Currently, 3,243 GPs hold at least one contract with the HSE, including 2,608 GPs who hold a General Medical Services, GMS, contract for the provision of GP services without charge to medical card and GP visit card holders. As private practitioners, GPs themselves are responsible for obtaining professional indemnity insurance from private medical insurance providers. Although the HSE contributes to GMS GPs' medical indemnity costs, neither the Department of Health nor the HSE has a role in the provision of medical indemnity to GPs. In that aspect, there is very little we can do in terms of intervention. Under the GMS scheme, GPs may hold their GMS contract until 72 years of age. This was recently extended from the age of 70 in 2015. That speaks to the point the Deputy makes about the case of the GP he has outlined, who is 72. The HSE can grant an extension on a case-by-case basis, where considered necessary and appropriate, to allow a GP to continue to see their GMS patients after reaching 72 years. After the age of 72, GPs can continue to provide services other than to medical card and GP visit card holders under the GMS. The HSE is actively involved in recruiting a replacement GP where a GMS vacancy arises. The HSE advertises GMS positions in advance of known upcoming vacancies, and every effort is then made to fill the GMS vacancy. Locum GP cover is provided in the interim for most cases, while in a small number of cases, the retiring GP is requested to remain in practice temporarily until the vacancy is filled or an alternative option is finalised. As of the beginning of April, there are only 20 GMS vacancies, with no GMS vacancies in County Cork. This equates to less than 1% of the total number of GMS panels. The Government is committed to increasing the number of GPs working across the country, and several measures have been undertaken in recent years to increase GP capacity and improve access to services for all patients. Investment in general practice has been increased by over €340 million under the 2019 and 2023 GP GMS agreements. The agreements provide for increased fees for participating GPs, improved and additional supports for practices, and new services for patients such as the GP chronic disease management programme. There is further text in the response but, just to summarise in terms of the Deputy's specific ask, the indemnity that a GP gets is very much between them and the indemnity provider. In the GMS contract, that age limit of 72 is clearly an issue. Certainly it is something on which I am willing to go back to the Minister for Health, give the Deputy's feedback and relay his concerns. That is the current state of affairs.

Sentiment score: 0.22

I picked out the same sentence the Deputy highlighted there, that the HSE can grant an extension on a case-by-case basis where considered necessary and appropriate. I guess the first part is where it is considered necessary. Does that come back to demand and vacancy in an area or lack of or challenges with GP cover? Certainly if it comes down to cognitive ability, of course surely that can be done on a case-by-case basis. It would seem like a simple thing to undertake. There is a saying down in west Cork that 80 is the new 60. Certainly we are living older and there are many 73-, 74- and 75-year-olds who are sharp as a razor, much sharper than I am in that regard. I guess that is the chink of light the Deputy is seeing in the answer there. Maybe this is a case where we can tease that out further. Is this a situation where the HSE might allow the GMS contract to go past the age of 72? Going back to the issue of indemnity, that is very much between the GP and the provider. Fair play to the Deputy for raising this, and to the constituent who so eloquently outlined why this particular GP should still have a GMS contract.

Sentiment score: 0.17

I thank Deputy Murphy from the bottom of my heart for raising this issue. It is such an important one to raise in Dáil Éireann. The behaviour and the actions of some of the people driving these sulkies is deplorable. It is disgusting. We have all seen the videos. We have seen the sad footage of horses losing their lives in the cruellest of ways. We can imagine the pain those animals go through. That is the worst we have seen but excessive use of the whip is always common. A lot of these animals appear undernourished as it is. There are big animal welfare issues. Of course, there is also the whole issue of road safety, where people's lives are put at risk. This has to be clamped down and I completely agree with Deputy Murphy. It is very important that we do not confuse this with legal harness racing which is licensed. It happens on tracks and is done in a professional way where animal welfare is paramount and the animals are looked after in the best way. I can tell Deputy Murphy that sector is disgusted with what it sees on some of the roads in Ireland. I thank Deputy Murphy for raising this. It is important to note that the drivers of all vehicles used on public roads, including horse-drawn carriages, are required to comply with road traffic legislation and to behave in a safe manner paying due care to other road users. The enforcement of such road traffic legislation is first and foremost a matter for An Garda Síochána. The Deputy will be aware that the Roads Act 1993 includes provisions for road races involving persons, vehicles or animals, and the temporary closure of public roads to facilitate a road race. Under section 74 of the Act, any person intending to hold, organise, or promote a road race on a public road must notify and obtain the approval of the local authority and the superintendent of An Garda Síochána within whose district the race is to be held. A race which is not licensed is illegal, with penalties for the organiser. However, the offence applies only to the organiser and I understand that in many cases of sulky races there is no identifiable organiser. Enforcing the Roads Act where a road race takes place unlawfully without the permission of the local authority, as the roads authority, is a matter of enforcement for An Garda Síochána. In a situation where there is an illegal race, with no notice given, it is a matter for gardaí to enforce section 74(4) of the Roads Act 1993. Participants in sulky racing are liable for any road traffic offence they may commit during the races. In many cases of sulky racing there is also considerable danger caused by vehicles following the race and, in some cases, driving alongside on the other side of the road. In these cases too, the drivers can be held liable under the Road Traffic Acts. Other legislation is in place in relation to animal welfare matters, which are a matter for the Minister for agriculture. I understand that the Control of Horses Act 1996 includes provisions in relation to An Garda Síochána's powers of seizure and detention, the minimum age to obtain a horse licence and the selling of a horse to a person under the age of 16 years. The Act also provides that An Garda Síochána may compel individuals in control of horses to obtain necessary attention from a vet if the horse is in pain, distress, neglect or is severely injured, diseased or in need of attention. Failure to comply is an offence. In addition, under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, people in possession of a protected animal, including horses, must ensure the animal is kept and treated in a manner that safeguards their health and welfare. Failure to do this is considered an offence under that Act.

Sentiment score: -0.06

Deputy Murphy has highlighted some very important aspects of this. The law is old and it probably has not been reviewed in a while. The legislative programme is jam packed and very busy but his suggestion of an interdepartmental group, certainly with the Departments of agriculture, Transport and justice in particular, to review the legislation would be very important. Clearly, and I can say this not being in any of those Departments but as a TD, that it does not seem fit for purpose, especially if only the organiser can be prosecuted under the legislation. It is certainly something we need to look at. In the meantime, I appeal to the better nature of anyone involved in this first of all not to do it. There are legal organised events out there on field tracks and purpose-built race tracks. They are done legally and run professionally. What is happening and what I have seen happen on the roads is nothing short of a disgrace and it needs to be clamped down on. I urge those involved to think of people and the potential road traffic accidents, but also to think of the shocking pain. It is heartbreaking to hear these animals scream in their final breath. It is something I think has touched the hearts of the entire nation when I see it. The hunger and appetite from the general public for this to be addressed is very strong. I say well done again for raising it.

Sentiment score: 0.07

I thank both Deputies for raising this issue, and I share their concerns with regards to antimicrobial medicinal products being used and the impact that would have. Deputy Newsome Drennan highlighted well the potential health impacts in that regard. As Minister of State with responsibility for nature, I know the level of deforestation in Brazil. The production of beef is the biggest cause of deforestation in Brazil. That is something that does not sit well with me. That is just to add my personal view. On 12 May, the standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed voted in favour of a draft Commission implementing regulation amending implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405 as regards the restrictions of the prohibition on the use of certain antimicrobial medicinal products and repealing implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2598. The annex of the draft implementing the regulation includes an updated list of countries that have demonstrated compliance with EU restrictions on the use of antimicrobials in animals. Under EU rules, such substances cannot be used to promote growth or increase production in livestock and other food-producing animals. Brazil has been excluded from the list, meaning that it can no longer export to the EU commodities such as bovine, equine, poultry, eggs, aquaculture, honey and casings, with effect from 3 September 2026. This includes both food producing live animals and derived products. This is a clear example of the importance of maintaining the EU's sanitary and phytosanitary standards. The Government will continue to advocate for the strict monitoring of imports in order to reflect the concerns of our farmers and consumers. The Deputies also referenced the EU-Mercosur trade deal. As Government, we have raised concerns in relation to the EU-Mercosur agreement over a number of years, particularly its potential impact on the beef sector, the strength of its climate and sustainability commitments and the food safety and environmental standards enforced by Mercosur countries. Our focus is on ensuring rigorous monitoring by the Commission of the agreement’s market impacts and the robust enforcement by the Commission, where necessary, of the provisions of the recently agreed safeguards regulation. The Government will also continue to engage closely with the Commission to ensure that it follows through on its additional commitments. This includes those in relation to food safety and environmental standards, as well as its stated intention to better align the production standards of imported products with EU production standards particularly with regard to pesticides and animal welfare. All of this work is crucial to fully addressing the concerns of our farmers and our consumers.

Sentiment score: 0.27

I come from a farming background and I know all about it. The Deputies mentioned the paperwork, the bureaucracy and the headaches those give. Farmers just want to farm. They want to get on with doing what they are good at instead of filling out forms, but it means they reach incredibly high standards and that is why our produce is famous worldwide. I commend the investigative work of the IFA and the Irish Farmers Journal because there is no doubt it was one of the highlighting factors that really brought this to attention and put it to the fore in terms of highlighting the issue in Brazil. They must be commended on that. I get the Deputies' anxiety and call for urgency in bringing the date forward. I cannot, obviously, give any guarantee the date of 3 September will be brought forward but as I said in the initial response, all pressure will be put on by the Department and the Minister to ensure that is upheld and the best standards are upheld. It is really up to Brazil to sort out its own affairs.

Sentiment score: 0.14

I do not expect that will happen. That is just my own feeling on it. I agree with the Deputies we need to keep our standards high. If there is any hint of a possibility that people's health will be impacted, as outlined by Deputy Newsome Drennan, then that is something we cannot stand for. Getting back to my original point about the deforestation rates, it just does not sit well with me and that is something I am proud of here in Ireland in terms of our produce.

Sentiment score: 0.21

I thank Deputy Ward for raising this. I will try to answer to best of my ability on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Foley. It was a pre-election commitment by both our parties but massive inroads have been made into reducing the cost of childcare. I remember hearing debates in here where it was frequently described as a second mortgage. We have significantly reduced the cost of childcare in most instances. Clearly the Deputy is describing anomalies and outliers there but certainly the feedback we received was this intervention worked. In my constituency, with the changes in core funding, there were some issues and some providers left but that seems to have cooled off a bit in my part of Ireland. Obviously the Deputy is describing a genuine situation that clearly needs to be looked at but I will just outline the inroads that have been made. When first introduced in 2022, core funding had an annual allocation of €259 million, of which €210.8 million was entirely new funding to the sector. That annual allocation has increased each year since and exceeds €390 million for year 4 of the scheme, which started in September. This represents an increase of over 50% in core funding in three years. The allocation for core funding for year 5 of the scheme will increase again by 23% to over €480 million. This will support a range of important priorities, including maintaining fees at 2021 levels in year 5, supporting further improvements in pay to staff and supporting services in adhering to fee management conditions, which will ensure affordability for families and sustainability and stability for staff. Uptake of core funding remains strong. As of 4 May 2026, there were 4,633 services signed up to the fourth year of core funding, which represents a 93% uptake by eligible services. This is the highest number of partner services in core funding at any point since the scheme was launched in 2022. The Minister, Deputy Foley, is encouraged by this rate of participation. It shows the vast majority of families will continue to benefit from the scheme’s fee management conditions. The Minister is aware a small number of services have regrettably chosen to withdraw from core funding. The Department, through the local childcare committees, CCCs, engages directly with any such service to highlight the benefits of staying in core funding, not only for their service but also for the families who avail of them. The Minister remains hopeful these providers may reconsider their decision, as many have previously. Core funding is a supply-side grant to early learning and childcare providers towards their operating costs. It is designed to promote affordability for parents and sustainability for providers through increased funding to the sector, paid on a consistent and equitable basis. As core funding is an optional scheme, providers have the autonomy to withdraw from or choose not to participate in the scheme. It is a matter for providers to decide whether they wish to sign up to core funding and benefit from the significant financial supports it offers to providers and the certainty it gives to parents through the associated fee management measures. The Department has a list of all core funding partner services which is updated regularly on the Department’s website. Regardless of whether the early learning and childcare service which a child attends is participating in core funding, both the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme and the national childcare scheme, NCS, are currently available to parents. The local childcare committee can provide contact information for parents should they need help to secure alternative places. Parents and guardians can also use the dedicated NCS website to find core funding partner services in their area. Those statistics highlight that the year-on-year increase in core funding has been a success. We have a 93% participation rate. This is not to take away from the example the Deputy has given, where clearly this has not worked. Clearly, in the area where the Deputy is, costs remain high and viability remains difficult for some of the providers.

Sentiment score: 0.33

I was going to repeat the point about engagement with the city and county childcare committees to show facilities the merits of being in the scheme, but obviously the people the Deputy is talking about are, first of all, educators. This is 100% why they are in this area. They have a passion for it and they want to educate young kids. Second, they are also businesspeople. Obviously, they have gone through this, have gone up and down and in and out and decided - probably a very tough decision to make - that this was not for them. Clearly, however, considering the 93% uptake and the year-on-year increase, the scheme has been a success. As I said to the Deputy, while there were similar issues in my area and providers were dropping out of the scheme, that is no longer the case. It is an interesting question about urban areas that the Deputy is talking about. Perhaps this is a question on which we could go back to the Minister, Deputy Foley, in respect of where the 7% of facilities are that we are missing out on. That is a very valid question to ask. I totally agree with the Deputy that we need to plough on and continue this momentum in reducing childcare fees. It is a commitment we gave and we need to continue with this work. I thank the Deputy again for raising this issue on behalf of his constituents.

Sentiment score: 0.24