Tax Rebates
231. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he is aware of the issue around accessing and cash flow in relation to the diesel rebate scheme; if consideration has been given to providing the benefit of the diesel rebate scheme as a direct cut on excise on diesel at the pumps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26925/26]
Obviously, the priority questions were submitted before the announcements last week, which the Government was forced to make by people pressure and by parties in opposition like Sinn Féin, but we know that half measures do not cut it. Still we see so many people, particularly hauliers, who are locked out of the rebate scheme. There are reasons for this, such as if they are transporting livestock, their own product or if they do not have a haulage licence. There is a serious issue with cash flow. I have argued time and again with the Taoiseach that the direct reduction needs to be given at the fuel pumps. That would benefit not only hauliers but also everybody else who relies on petrol and diesel and who are paying extortionate prices during this time of crisis. Will the Tánaiste finally listen, see sense and actually cut fuel prices to affordable levels at the pumps?
I have looked at this issue in terms of both access and cash flow in relation to the diesel rebate scheme. As the Deputy knows, the diesel rebate scheme is a state aid that provides qualifying road haulage and passenger transport operators with a partial repayment of mineral oil tax paid on auto diesel. The scheme operates in accordance with the EU's energy tax directive, as it must, and with the general block exemption regulation on state aid. In 2025, almost €40 million was paid out under the scheme, providing targeted support to the road haulage and passenger transport sectors.
The diesel rebate scheme rate of repayment is linked to the average retail price of auto diesel, based on data from the CSO. A 7.5 cent rebate has applied to all claims over the period from quarter 1 of 2021 to quarter 4 of 2025. In response to the current fuel crisis, I recently increased the repayment cap from 7.5 cent per litre to 12 cent per litre. This enhanced repayment rate applies to claims in respect of fuel purchased from 1 January to 30 June this year.
The Deputy raised a genuinely interesting point regarding the point at which the rebate is applied. I have been looking into this. I am advised by Revenue that the operation of the diesel rebate scheme on a remission basis at the pump is not compatible with the legal basis of the scheme as repayment rates are determined on an ex-post basis. I looked at whether the scheme could be redesigned but, even if the scheme were redesigned, the application of mineral oil tax reductions at the pump to qualifying transport operators would require the introduction of complex real-time validation systems and shift compliance risks to fuel retailers. For these reasons, Revenue considers that improvements are more appropriately focused on administrative efficiencies to lead to faster repayments. Revenue encourages customers to file claims immediately when the period to claim opens, which I believe many do, and to ensure that claims are completed correctly and that supporting documentation is available if requested by Revenue.
Revenue is mindful of the financial impact of the current increase in fuel prices and the importance of the rebate scheme to licensed operators. It will work with claimants who are unable to obtain tax clearance on a case-by-case basis. Where a claimant has tax clearance and yet has some tax liabilities, Revenue will process any claim and offset any refunds against liabilities. I will have another chance to come in but, as is always the case with cash flow issues, it is important that there is engagement with Revenue. I know that Revenue will be constructive in that regard.
The Tánaiste is missing the point here.
I am trying not to.
I do not know if he is doing it deliberately or not. If you cut excise duty directly at the pump, it benefits the hauliers, transport operators and bus companies that need that measure for cash flow, but it also benefits everybody else. It benefits carers, nurses, doctors, teachers, street cleaners and everybody else in society. That is what should be happening here. That is the best way to cut costs for the hauliers, who would then not have to wait three months and deal with more paperwork and red tape as they fill in applications to the rebate scheme. What people are demanding and took to the streets for, although the Tánaiste refused to listen to them, is a cut to excise duty at the pumps. They wanted costs driven down. There is still capacity to do some of that because we are still not at the minimum levels of excise duty on petrol and diesel. A carer who rocks up to the petrol station tomorrow will pay €2.07 per litre. He or she is paying more excise duty on that litre of diesel than is required under EU law. That is a fact and that is wrong. It is wrong at a time of huge surpluses in this State and when the Government now has €4.1 billion extra that it did not expect to have. People are really suffering but the Government is still refusing to listen, refusing to understand and, what is worse, refusing to act appropriately.
I will make a couple of points. We are not refusing to listen and we are certainly not refusing to act. We have brought in one of the largest packages of support in the European Union. That is a statement of fact. That is the right thing to do because our economy enables us to.
Second, I do not say this to be argumentative but, on diesel, the advice available to me is that we have actually gone further than the energy tax directive allows. We have had to write to Europe to seek a derogation in that regard. That is genuinely advice that has been made available to me. We have gone further than we should have under the EU energy tax directive, such is the scale of the challenge around diesel.
Third, I am answering the specific question the Deputy tabled, No. 231, which relates to the diesel rebate scheme. This is a very valuable scheme. Hauliers value it and farm contractors sought it. The sector sees value in the scheme. The Deputy asked me what I thought was a very legitimate question and I am endeavouring to answer it in good faith. He asked whether there is a better way of administering the scheme. The specific question I was asked was whether we should look at trying to provide the benefit of this scheme as a direct cut. The advice available to me suggests that would not be the most effective way to go about it and that it could actually lead to a greater administrative burden.
Cash flow is a real issue and the Deputy is right to highlight it. I have asked the Revenue Commissioners to try to identify further administrative efficiencies to further improve this scheme from a cash flow perspective.
Does the Minister accept that the nurse pulling up to a petrol station, putting diesel into her car and paying €2.07 per litre, the price I was seeing last night, is paying more excise duty on that fuel than is required under EU law? It is a simple question.
Is the Deputy asking about excise duty on petrol or on diesel?
I am asking about diesel. Under European law, the minimum excise duty to be imposed on her diesel is €330 per 1,000 litres. She is paying more than that. That is the reality. The issue here is that the resources are in the State. The Minister knows that. The money is there. The money is there to help people. It is there to help hauliers, nurses and gardaí. It is there to help the people but the Minister is refusing to do that. His head has been seriously stuck in the sand for the past two weeks. People power had to be employed in ways it had never been before to get Deputies Simon Harris and Micheál Martin to wake up and listen. These half jobs are not good enough. Some €2.07 is far too high when it comes on top of everything else, including all of the pressures and the withdrawal of various supports from families last October. That is what the Minister is missing and what he is failing to understand. This question was very simple. The Minister can do this in a different way, which would benefit everybody but he does not want to do it because he is penny-pinching.
We really are not. Significant lessons have been learned from the past number of weeks. The Deputy and I might agree on some and completely and utterly disagree on others. I was disappointed to see his support for blockades. I was not disappointed to see him joining protests. In fact, I would expect him to do so. That is fine in a democracy.
I was disappointed when you threatened them with the Army.
I was genuinely disappointed to see several of the Deputy's colleagues refuse to condemn illegal action. I do think that is genuinely disappointing. We have to pull together and do our best. What I would say to those the Deputy has highlighted in this House, the nurses and those in other professions, is that the actions we have taken are real. There is €750 million worth of measures. The Deputy knows this brief well so he will know that not only will this package have a particular benefit in reducing the price of diesel and petrol compared to what it would have been and do things like extending the fuel allowance period and putting in place a diesel rebate scheme for hauliers and a package for farmers, but that it will also have the effect of reducing the inflation rate by about 0.6%. That is the advice of the chief economist. Although the inflation we will end up seeing in supermarkets will be too high as a result of this war, the rate would have been 0.6% higher were it not for this package. That also has a real and genuine benefit in trying to insulate people. We also have to keep some firepower for the winter. I have no doubt but that the Deputy will, quite rightly, have many ideas on what we should do to help people through a winter challenge. An energy crisis in the winter is even more challenging than one in the summer. This is a balance. I think the step-by-step approach is genuinely the right one.
Tax Data
232. Deputy Roderic O'Gorman asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if his Department has assessed the predicted shortfall in revenue from the recent cuts to the carbon tax; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28778/26]
Will the Tánaiste give us an account of his Department's assessment of the shortfall in revenue from the deferral of the carbon tax increase?
The estimated cost of delaying the carbon tax increase on home heating fuels until October is €22 million. This represents approximately 2% of the overall carbon tax revenue allocated for expenditure in the last budget, which was over €1.1 billion. While there will be different views and perspectives on the carbon tax - I know the Deputy's view - I will be very clear that the carbon tax remains a core part of Ireland's climate policy, which aims to reach net-zero. The Deputy will agree that the need for society and the economy to decouple from fossil fuel dependence is even more apparent now, given the volatility in the international fuel markets. However, you also have to apply a degree of common sense. I am not suggesting the Deputy would not; I am just saying I had to. When we were limited in what we could do on the likes of home heating oil, allowing a carbon tax increase to proceed would have pushed up costs further. I did not believe that to be the right thing to do at this moment in time.
While we are not discussing it enough, the best way to insulate our economy and society from fuel price shocks is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Carbon tax funds are allocated for expenditure on measures that will achieve this such as the continuation of the national retrofitting programme, investment in community energy efficiency measures and funding for greener farming practices. I reassure the Deputy that the full amount allocated from that sum of just over €1.1 billion in budget 2026 will still be spent on the intended measures. In other words, the €22 million deferral will not come off the climate action fund or other climate measures. It will be met from running a smaller budget surplus. The allocations set out in budget 2026, which were approved by this Oireachtas, remain the voted amounts for the year. This includes carbon tax funding commitments incorporated into the national development plan, which provides medium-term certainty for sectors and communities supported by these measures.
On the evening we voted on the financial resolutions, I noted that the Tánaiste's decision to defer that increase shattered that coalition that had existed in this House across Government and some parts of the Opposition where difficult votes to support the carbon tax had been taken. I genuinely have to ask why. As the Tánaiste pointed out, the value forgone is actually very small in terms of the overall package, €22 million out of €505 million. It is 4.3%. I spoke to a number of Fianna Fáil backbenchers the next day and they made the point that for six years, they had gone out and batted for the carbon tax and the Tánaiste's action had really pulled the rug out from underneath them in terms of the case they were making. By deferring the increase, the Tánaiste has ceded the ground to those who say the carbon tax is the root of all evil, and he has lost that case for that constant expansion of that pool of money for ACRES, the warmer homes scheme and retrofits, and ultimately it has not won the Tánaiste one iota of thanks from the people who have always opposed this particular measure. Again, I have to ask the Tánaiste why he did it.
I do not look for thanks in politics and I certainly do not look for thanks from political opponents. It is not why I do this job. I do look for ways of assisting people and you have to bring the people with you too. While the Deputy obviously supports the carbon tax, I appreciate that many in opposition stand by the carbon tax too and do not engage in populism on this. It is an important form of tax revenue. However, we do have to look at the reality in terms of the cost of a fill of home heating. We had to look at the reality in terms of green diesel. It did not make sense to decide to tell people that we were going to further increase the cost of their home heating oil.
There also needs to be a sense of perspective in relation to this. That decision has not resulted in any reduced amount of money being spent on the climate action fund or on the retrofitting programme or on the fuel allowance because it is €22 million. It is 2% of the total amount that we expect to take in. I would also make the broader point that when the carbon tax was legislated for, I think, in 2020, the war in Ukraine had not happened and the war in Iran had not happened. I support the carbon tax. Some in the Opposition do not and some in the Opposition do; that is fine. However, these are realities in terms of the impact on the energy market and you can believe in a carbon tax and also believe that now might not have been the right time to further increase it.
The Tánaiste has spoken about common sense and it not making sense now to allow these increases to take place but he has to recognise the precedent that he set he it suspended the carbon tax increase because of the blockades in our streets. The Tánaiste has to understand that the people who have seen him bend and break now will anticipate that he will do it again and will look to put that same level pressure on it when it comes to the next set of decisions coming in October of this year.
When it comes to October of this year, can the Tánaiste set out what his starting point is in respect of the carbon tax? Is he committed to continuing to grow that pot of money that is available for ACRES to support farmers, to support the further roll out of the warmer homes scheme and other retrofit schemes, and to have additional money so social protection payments like the fuel allowance can be increased, or is it a wait and see matter? Are we just going to wait and see until October and see what level of pressure is going to deployed against him? Will his common sense mean that he will actually duck the decision again?
I do not think that is a fair portrayal. We have managed as a country to introduce a carbon tax. We have managed to bring in over €1 billion in it. We have managed to legislate for it on a multi-annual basis. We did not bomb Iran. We did not disrupt 20% of the world's energy supply. The Government has to use the levers at its disposal.
If we want to engage in real and meaningful climate action, we have to try to bring people with us, and the centre of Irish politics has to try to bring people with it as well. This measure needs to be seen in the round. It is 2% of the total amount we are expecting to take in carbon tax this year. It does not have an impact in reducing the climate action fund, and all taxation measures - and I say the same no matter what taxation measure I am asked about - are a matter of consideration at the budget. The tax strategy group in my Department looks at all things and I am committed to the carbon tax. I am committed to the legislation behind the carbon tax and committed to the carbon tax growing as part of our climate action in this country. However, I am also committed to looking at how we can assist people with their energy costs in the here and now, and there are some areas where there are limited tools available because there are no other excises on the fuels. Deputy Doherty and I had this debate. Carbon tax was on the kerosene. Some wanted me to reduce it. Instead, I just did not proceed with the increase, and I thought that was a balanced approach.
Tax Reliefs
233. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will consider the maximum removal of excise duty, both carbon and non-carbon, from green diesel, given the vital role of green diesel in primary production like farming and other sectors such as construction; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26926/26]
The Minister steadfastly refused to cut excise duty on green diesel, despite all of the evidence and the knowledge that farmers are under serious pressure. The reason is that the excise duty on green diesel is carbon tax. It is the carbon component. Does the Tánaiste know something? A farmer does not care what it is called. He does not care whether it is excise, carbon or whatever else. He just knows that the price has gone from 97 cent a litre up to €1.80 and, as Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste is refusing to cut it at the pumps. He has the ability today to still support farmers in a way that really matters, right here, right at the pumps, by actually removing carbon tax from green diesel. Why will he not do it?
If I adopt the approach as Minister for Finance of abolishing taxes and increasing spending, it does not get us to a good place as a country. That is why. It is not a sustainable economic policy to abolish that tax and increase public spending. We know where that will get us.
There are legitimate conversations we can have around windfall receipts and surpluses and around how to deploy them but the Deputy and I know that it is done in a one-off space. You do not do that in relation to more consistent measures and eroding the tax base would be doing a disservice to people in rural and urban Ireland as well.
The Deputy made the point - and I take it - that the farmer could not care whether it is carbon tax or not carbon tax; they just quite rightly care that the cost of green diesel is just too high. I accept that point but I would say back that they do not particularly care what lever we use to help them only that we help them. That is why is addition to the NORA levy and in addition to deciding not to proceed with the increase, we did also put in place a scheme. I accept the point from farmers and others that there needed to be a scheme and needed to be assistance. As the Deputy knows very well, we brought in a specific scheme - a fuel subsidy support scheme - under the Minister for agriculture's remit to assist farmers, agricultural contractors and fishers facing unprecedented increases in fuel payments. The payments will cover the months of March up until the end of July, which, as the Deputy knows, coincides with the peak fuel usage on farms. The scheme will provide around €20 million per month in supports, and it is worth approximately 20 cent per litre of marked gas oil, MGO. When that is combined that with the other measures, it is a significant, important and proportionate response as well. We have done some elements in relation to excise. Other than the carbon element, I admit there was not much to do. We did take action on the excise and on NORA and we have supplemented that with a 20 cent scheme that is worth roughly 20 cent per litre of MGO. That is the balanced approach we have taken to try to help.
It would cost €14 million a month to actually remove carbon tax from green diesel, the cost of which has gone through the roof for farmers. Talk to agricultural contractors and talk to ordinary farmers. Talk to the farmers who are telling me that this scheme, which we have not seen as the applications are not even open yet because this a Government that dithers, delays and only acts when it is pushed into things, is going to create more paperwork. What the Government will not listen to is that it has the ability to reduce the excise duty on green diesel at the pump for the farmer right now. It would cost €14 million a month in the context of a surplus of over €9 billion, money we are going to take in this year, and we are not going to spend.
The Tánaiste should not give me his guff about this breaking the economy. Supporting farmers is the right thing to do. It will not break the economy. Supporting farmers is what any responsible Government should be doing. The ability is here to support people in terms of the scale of this crisis but the Government is refusing to do it, and the reason it is refusing to do it is for the simple reason it is called carbon tax. Is that not the truth?
No, the truth of the matter is that Sinn Féin is isolated on this issue. We heard a lot about the united Opposition. We had a vote in the Dáil on this issue. Labour, the Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Government parties, the Government-supporting Independents, an overwhelming majority in the Dáil, believe that the Sinn Féin position is short-sighted, short-termed and populist-----
The people backed me and-----
The Deputy is getting like-----
Deputy Doherty-----
Talk to the people and the Tánaiste will get that message very clearly.
Deputy Doherty, allow the Tánaiste to conclude.
You are living in this bubble too long, Simon. Go and talk to ordinary people.
If the people backed Sinn Féin, the Deputy would not have been the Opposition's spokesperson on finance for 16 years. The people do not back Sinn Féin, so stop speaking-----
For the past two elections, we have had more seats that Fine Gael.
Deputy Doherty, please.
The Deputy is over there shouting and roaring for 16 years. He must be exhausted but while he is over there shouting and roaring, we are working with constructive people in opposition and constructive people in government to try to pull this country together. While Sinn Féin wants to cause chaos, we have taken measures to help farmers.
I think the Deputy would accept that the IFA represents farmers. It has been in the room and has welcomed this scheme. He can pooh-pooh it. He is not a farmer and neither am I.
The Minister needs to get his head out of the clouds and sand and talk to ordinary people. He can pontificate all he wants, point fingers at me and say I am isolated and people do not back me in here. I do not give a damn because I know that I am on the side of ordinary Irish people. I know that people are being pushed to the pin of their collar. I have met them on the streets and in homes across the State over the past number of weeks. I know they need action and leadership and they are not getting it from the Minister. That is what I am doing here. I am giving them a voice and I do not care who else is on my side because I know the side I am on. The Minister is on the wrong side.
The question people will ask me after this exchange will be how the fella across from me justifies €9 billion of a surplus. Last night I spoke to an elderly person in Galway who has no fuel in her tank to heat her home. Carers told me the old woman apologised to them because the house was so cold. At a time the Exchequer's coffers are bursting, people are going cold. That is not a republic that is worthy of the name. The Minister has the opportunity to change that and make a real difference for people, but he refuses to do so because he is too long in this bubble and is out of touch with ordinary people.
The Deputy is in a so-called bubble longer than me, but his anger might be making him forget that fact. He is in the bubble a long time. I am not sure who he thinks elects me to Dáil Éireann, but he should come to Wicklow and meet the people who have never not elected me. He should not give me guff about who represents the ordinary people. Everybody in here has a mandate and people who vote for everybody are ordinary people. The Deputy does not have a monopoly on that.
He likes to suggest that the Government has not acted. Objectively, and ordinary people know this, the Government has put in place one of the largest packages in Europe. We have reduced the cost of diesel at the pump by 32 cent per litre. We have reduced the cost of petrol by 27 cent per litre. We introduced a scheme for farmers, hauliers and fishers. We cannot just see this crisis through the today and tomorrow because the Deputy and I know it will not end today or tomorrow. We have to prepare for the time ahead and that is why we published a series of economic forecasts that show how the economy will grow and inflation will impact in three different scenarios. That allows us in here - constructive ideas are welcome - and outside of here to frame budget 2027 and begin to put in place measures to help people. We will do so and we will get through this and do more to support people.
We cannot do everything in the here and now. We certainly cannot abolish every tax. The Deputy does not want to just abolish the carbon tax. He wants to abolish the property tax. If we abolish, abolish, abolish, how do we fund public services and make sure we have the resources we need in the future? He cannot ask me to abolish every tax that he does not like and increase public spending.
I am not asking the Minister. He should not be stupid. He should not be silly.
We cannot do both.
Tax Code
234. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will consider the maximum removal of mineral oil tax on home heating oil given the substantial price increases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26927/26]
I am sure the Minister will not listen to this either.
I always listen.
He always listens. The last time the Minister listened the Government was trying to turn the Army on our own people. That is the listening. That is the reaction we got from Government.
There is one army.
Let me just say this here-----
Can both of you please address your remarks through the Chair and we might get through the questions?
Some 750,000 households across the State rely on home heating oil to heat their homes. Last night, at a public meeting attended by hundreds in Galway to discuss the cost-of-living crisis, I spoke to a carer who went into a home of an elderly woman. She worked all her life, paid her taxes and did everything right and apologised for the house being so cold because the heating had run out. The Minister refuses to cut excise duty on home heating oil to support household like hers, along with 750,000 other households. We have record surpluses of over €9 billion, yet the Government refuses to introduce a measure that would cost €14 million per month. Why is the Minister so out of touch? Why is he acting so Scrooge-like when he knows people are cold in their homes today because they cannot afford to heat them.
The Deputy cannot come in here and spend the surplus and then pursue a policy agenda that would have resulted in us never having it. We would not have had a surplus if we had followed his economic plan. It has been hard-won and earned by the Irish people and is there to be deployed in an appropriate manner and to make sure that the Deputy's children and mine never experience the austerity we experienced. It is there as an intergenerational support. The Deputy knows that. We put it into funds. They are not rainy day funds; they are funds to prepare for the changes and challenges the country will face in terms of demographics. They are funds to deliver infrastructure and climate projects. They are funds that are making a real difference.
The cost of home heating oil in this country is too high; of that there is no doubt. The energy crisis caused by the war has had a real impact. We have decided not to proceed with the carbon tax increase to assist in not making that situation worse. It is a fair comment. The Deputy asked me to suspend it and we did so because it is a proportionate response.
I do not want it suspended; I want it cancelled.
Fair enough. Once we do one thing, the Deputy wants us to do the next. He originally asked us to suspend it.
Please.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It is my time so I am going to speak.
Go ahead.
I have been very clear that we do not rule out the need to make further energy interventions. An energy crisis in the months of April and May will be very different from an energy crisis in the months of October, November and December. We have to prepare for that period too. The fuel allowance is being provided to 470,000 households. I do not know the circumstances of the pensioner's home the Deputy was in last night, but I know many pensioners, including those most at risk of fuel poverty, people with a disability, carers and low-income working families now more than ever qualify for the fuel allowance. A typical household receiving the fuel allowance will have received €1,216 over the course of the fuel allowance season.
The carbon tax makes up 10% of the total cost of home heating oil based on figures from 16 April. We have extended the fuel allowance season by a further four weeks to assist people who are struggling to pay for their home heating oil and those most at risk of poverty and to help them offset some of those costs.
This is the problem. The Minister does not understand the scale of the crisis or the lived experience of many people across the State. Before we had a fuel crisis, 320,000 families could not pay their electricity bills. Families were pushed to the pin of the collar because of increases in grocery prices, rents and insurance and childcare costs that were like a second mortgage. A generation felt home ownership was outside of the reach because of Government policies. The fuel crisis, brought on by external factors, has tipped people over the edge. People expect the Government to respond.
I spoke to the Minister about an old woman to wear an extra jacket because she has no heating in her home. This is not an isolated incident. A young woman wrote to me to tell me she had no home heating oil for two weeks because she could not afford it on top of medical and childcare expenses. She wrote to me on the day the Government announced its latest package of half measures. She said for the first time in a long time she felt a sense of hope, like maybe the pressure might ease even slightly, but by the time she finished work and saw the news, that small glimmer of light was gone again. She said it is hard to describe how it feels. The Minister sits there and pats himself on the back. He said our budget surpluses have doubled. We have €4 billion extra that we never thought we would have, but an elderly woman has to put on a jacket because our house is cold and a woman who is married to a fella who works every hour that God sends cannot afford heat in her home. There is something seriously wrong in this republic when people are left like that.
The Deputy suggests the Government does not take action to endeavour to assist people. That is his mantra. That is air enough. That is what he says but it is not true. There are other facts.
We are presiding over a country where the average weekly wage is over €1,000. They are not my figures; they are from the CSO. Every working day in this country 200 new jobs are being created. The long-term unemployment rate is at around 1%, an historic low. We announced a package of €750 million to directly help people, including the person to whom the Deputy referred. We have reduced the cost of filling a car relative to what it would have been, extended the fuel allowance, supported key sectors of the economy and, crucially, introduced measures that are reducing inflation. It would have been higher by 0.6% a month were not for the measures we have taken.
In our latest budget we provided the largest ever increases in areas such as the child support payment. We are prioritising those most in need. The Deputy said I do not understand the scale of the problem. I am not sure he understands it. No government in the world can fully insulate its country from the economic impact of this war. We cannot look at this through the prism of today or tomorrow. We have to look at this in terms of preparing for the time ahead because if we do not keep our powder dry and instead do everything that comes into the Deputy's mind today or tomorrow that might make us popular in the short term but it sure as hell will not keep the people of this country safe in the months ahead.
The Tánaiste's mantra again speaks to me of the fact that he does not understand where people are at. Does the Tánaiste think the woman who wrote to me does not know what she is earning? Of course she knows what she is earning but she also knows that the cost of electricity has gone through the roof. She also knows that the weekly shop is a lot more expensive than it was last week, that the cost of childcare is another mortgage and that rents are increasing. Now she also knows that her house is cold for two weeks because she cannot afford to heat her home.
I am not asking the Tánaiste to spend all of the €9.1 billion surplus. Rather, I am asking him to do what a responsible Minister for Finance would do when he or she sees that citizens are suffering and in crisis - to show leadership and act to support them. The Tánaiste can do that. He can cut excise duty on home heating oil today. It would cost €14 million - not billion – per month. The Tánaiste refuses to do it, however. It would make a real difference to her and so many others like her but the Tánaiste refuses to do it. He is seriously out of touch with where public opinion is at on this.
The Deputy is seriously out of touch in terms of the scale of the economic challenge facing the world right now. The Deputy’s position on this is to ask for more and more money to be spent every day. Maybe that is what one does when one is in opposition. In fairness, not all Opposition parties do that, but maybe that is what the Deputy’s party does when it is in opposition. The Deputy is ignoring the fact that he would not be able to speak to any of my European counterparts who has done more. If he brings in Rachel Reeves or asks the finance ministers in Germany, France or Italy - he can pick any country - he will learn that we have taken more action than almost any other European country per head of population, and rightly so because we have run the economy well. If the Deputy were sitting on this side of the House - thankfully the people have not put him here the last number of times they were asked – we would not have the surpluses that he now demands we spend. We have to take this step by step. That is not a mantra; it is a fact. It is the best advice available to me. Asking me to do more on heating during the summer months when I have to prepare for the winter months is not a sensible thing. This is about actually-----
What is she supposed to do? Should she wear another jacket or tighten her belt? What advice do you have? Should she put on another coat?
If you accept that the fuel allowance is a payment, albeit one you want to blow a hole in through the carbon tax-----
That is nonsense.
Ignoring that, if you accept that the fuel allowance is an important way of helping the people most at risk of fuel poverty, which I think is your position in the North-----
Are you saying they are just stupid and not managing their budgets? What are you saying?
The only step the Sinn Féin Minister of Finance in the North has taken is a very small step towards a smaller version of the fuel allowance. You are in government in the North.
They cannot afford their heat.
You have the First Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy-----
They cannot afford their heat.
-----but you are not doing anything to help in the North at all. People need to look at how you say one thing down here and you do another thing up there.
You need to have a bit of cop-on.
It is complete hypocrisy.
You know that excise duty cannot be reduced in the North.
There is lots you could do.
Do not be stupid. You know that. Do not let yourself down.
There is lots you could do.
For God's sake, you know that the North does not have taxation powers.
Deputy Doherty, address your remarks through the Chair. Have a bit of respect for other Members in terms of how you address them. There is an appropriate way to do that. You might engage with and check the Standing Orders as well so that when you come in here, you understand that you are governed by certain Standing Orders.
Tax Appeals Commission
235. Deputy Shay Brennan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance his response to concerns regarding changes to rules governing hearings at the Tax Appeals Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27129/26]
My question concerns the proposed changes to hearings of the Tax Appeals Commission, particularly the removal of the taxpayers' automatic right to a private hearing. It will instead become a matter of discretion for the commissioner. Is the Tánaiste concerned that this change will deter taxpayers from exercising their right to appeal a Revenue assessment?
I thank both Deputy Brennan and the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach for their engagement on this matter. The revised general scheme of the finance (tax appeals and fiscal responsibility) Bill was published in November of last year. Head 5 of the general scheme concerns necessary amendments arising from the 2021 Supreme Court judgment. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the fact that all hearings before an adjudication officer were not held in public was inconsistent with the Constitution. A number of amendments are necessary to ensure the Tax Appeals Commission complies with that judgment.
It is important to say that the proposed changes will not remove the possibility of private hearings at the Tax Appeals Commission. Appeals commissioners will have discretion on whether to accept a request for an appeal to be heard in private, but they must consider whether privacy is necessary for that appeal to proceed. As such, there will remain the option of a private hearing where this is necessary for the appeal to proceed on a fair and just basis. I can think of many examples where it would be necessary for an appeal to be in private.
The finance (tax appeals and fiscal responsibility) Bill remains under pre-legislative scrutiny at this time. I assure the Deputy that we will consider the matters raised by stakeholders – I have met a number of them through the Irish Tax Institute - and those of the members of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach in advance of publication of the Bill.
The proposed Bill seeks to give appeals commissioners discretion to direct whether an appeal hearing is held in public or in private. This amendment is being proposed based on advice received from the Office of the Attorney General. It is anticipated that a greater number of appeals will be heard in public following the enactment of this Bill. However, appellants will still be able to request that an appeal is held in private. The grounds for that will include maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive information and protecting an individual's right to respect for their private and family life.
As I stated earlier, I am open to further engagement on this. I do not wish to prejudge what the pre-legislative scrutiny might say but I imagine it may require further legal engagement with the Office of the Attorney General. If there is a way of nuancing this or providing further clarity, I am very open to that because I want to get this right. I must, however, be truthful about the Supreme Court consideration. I am open to engaging and trying to get this right. I look forward to the report from pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Tánaiste will appreciate that the right to challenge a Revenue assessment is a fundamental protection for every taxpayer, but this right has little value if exercising it carries an unacceptable personal or commercial cost. If public exposure alone is enough to deter a taxpayer from pursuing a legitimate appeal, we risk undermining the entire system.
It is worth noting that 20% of determinations of the Tax Appeals Commission were found in favour of the appellant. Those taxpayers were of course correct to appeal. Under the proposed change, they would likely forgo their right to do so. Is the Tánaiste able to confirm whether the Department plans to carry out any assessment of the impact of these changes on taxpayers’ rights before this is progressed further?
The position as of now is that we have been endeavouring to comply with the Supreme Court judgment. Following that judgment, the view from the Office of the Attorney General was that there were proposals that we needed to make changes to the tax appeal system, specifically around the request for appeals to be held in private as well as the determination of appeals in the absence of a hearing. It is important that there are clear safeguards in place and clear grounds that an appeals commissioner must take account of. No one wants their sensitive and private information in the public domain; I understand that. There are issues that could cause harm to the public interest, such as sensitive information or information relating to public order and national security. The anticipation is not to have a significant jump in appeals being heard in public, nor do we wish to make it a deterrent. The right to appeal is important. The Revenue Commissioners have significant power and there must be a right to appeal.
While I do not wish to pre-empt the process, from following the hearings and listening to what is being said during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, including from stakeholders such as the Irish Tax Institute, I hope to give further consideration to this Bill, which includes engaging further with the Office of the Attorney General from a legal point of view to determine whether there is an ability to nuance further. I have to be cognisant of the Supreme Court judgment, however.
The Tánaiste might appreciate that there is potentially a significant and expensive unintended consequence of this. As he is fully aware, Ireland’s attractiveness as a location for multinational investment depends significantly on our tax policy, particularly the certainty and fairness we apply to taxation matters. The Tánaiste may be aware that a risk review of 20 EU member states showed that all provided rights to private tax appeal hearings. The changes proposed in Ireland would leave us very much exposed as an outlier. For multinational companies weighing up where to invest, the confidentiality of their business affairs and tax proceedings matters greatly. A system that risks public exposure for disputing a Revenue assessment is unlikely to be viewed favourably by these multinationals. Given the magnitude and importance of corporation tax receipts to our public finances, how has the Tánaiste considered the significant risk to Ireland’s reputation as a competitive tax jurisdiction if this change to our tax appeals process is progressed?
Obviously, making sure Ireland remains a competitive location for foreign direct investment, FDI, is an important consideration. I will reflect further on that on foot of the Deputy raising it. In looking at what other parts of the world do, we see that Canada, England and Australia operate in a similar environment to what the current legislation, as currently drafted, proposes for our tax appeals system. New Zealand is an exception where tax appeals are not open to the public. Across the EU, there is a significant variety across tax appeals bodies but it is certainly not uncommon to have a system where appeals are public in the first instance and then held in private at the discretion of an appellant for a stated reason.
In 2025, 1,192 new appeals were received and 1,286 cases were closed. A total of 237 appeals were scheduled for hearing in 2025, of which 93 subsequently proceeded.
It is very common for appeals to be settled, withdrawn or consolidated with other appeals, or indeed, dismissed in advance of any hearing taking place. We will give this further consideration. We will take the recommendations seriously from pre-legislative scrutiny. However, the question is how we can be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling and how we get that balance right.
Ambulance Service
115. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Minister for Health the steps she will take to avert industrial action among ambulance workers, the steps she is taking to meet the ambition of the ambulance service's strategic workforce plan and if she will make a statement on the matter. [28517/26]
My question concerns potential industrial action by ambulance paramedics, particularly pre-hospital care professionals, which would include emergency medical technicians, EMTs, paramedics and others. They voted overwhelmingly to take industrial action, as the Minister knows, on 12, 19 and 26 May. I imagine that the last thing paramedics and EMTs want is to be on strike. A number of votes were taken in recent times, including one last year, on the roles and responsibilities changes that paramedics voted against, so clearly there are issues. These are votes of no confidence in the system and no confidence in action that should be taken being taken, so what is next? What action will the Minister take to avert industrial action?
I do not think anybody wants to be involved in strikes of any kind. That is not how we do things, which is why we have the very comprehensive industrial relations architecture we have painstakingly built over some time. The HSE and my Department have engaged extensively, constructively and in good faith, as have the National Ambulance Service representatives, for more than two years to address the issues raised within the National Ambulance Service. That engagement has taken place through the State’s established industrial relations machinery, including the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the Labour Court, and within the framework of the public service agreement.
A comprehensive and independently brokered set of proposals emerged from that process. These included significant pay improvements for staff, of between 3% and 14% on top of the 9.25% pay increases already provided for under the public service agreement. Crucially, those pay increases were linked to agreed reforms and I can go through some of the detail of those reforms, which would generate a more comprehensive ambulance response service for everybody and an easier working life. The HSE and my Department accepted the proposals and the subsequent Labour Court recommendation in full, and both SIPTU and Unite recommended them to their members at the time.
The difficulty now is that the unions are seeking to secure all the pay increases while there has been a reluctance to deliver the accompanying reforms. Those reforms are essential because they deliver real benefits for patients and service delivery, including faster response times, more ambulances available through modern crewing arrangements, greater flexibility across the service, stronger assurance of ongoing regulatory compliance and the ability to treat more patients safely in the most appropriate setting.
The problem is that the National Ambulance Service is massively understaffed. I put down a parliamentary question to which the Minister's office responded a number of weeks ago. In 2025, the HSE target was to have 4,162 whole-time-equivalent paramedics working in the National Ambulance Service. The number for this year is 2,657. By 2026, the target was to have 4,780. The number is estimated to be 2,920 by the end of the year. By 2028, it is meant to be over 6,000. At best, we are going to hit 3,500. We are somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 paramedics short of what we need. That is leading to burnout and fatigue, which is why there has been vote after vote where paramedics, EMTs and others have said that they have had enough and cannot take any more. As far as I can see, they do not have confidence in the management of the National Ambulance Service because clearly if there are votes coming back all of the time where they are voting against recommendations and for industrial action, there is a problem. The problem is burnout and fatigue and can only be fixed by more capacity and better resources. I appeal to the Minister to do everything possible to support our paramedics and avert industrial action.
It is important to acknowledge that there has been 30% growth in the staff of the National Ambulance Service, which is a larger proportional increase than the health service received overall. We have invested an additional €75 million in the service since 2022 and staff members have increased by 761 since 2022. The total workforce is now 2,500.
Further investment planned for 2026 will deliver 21 extra crewed ambulances at peak demand. I understand that 134 of 168 posts have been recruited, so recruitment is progressing reasonably well so far this year.
My overriding priority, of course, like the Deputy's, is the safety of patients and the continuity of the emergency services. It is important to discuss the reforms that have been suggested and agreed in the industrial relations architecture, and I can do that. However, we cannot just increase capacity anywhere without introducing reform as well.
The paramedics that I have spoken to, and I have spoken to many, are all in favour of reform, but they also want to know that the Government has their backs and is putting in place the capacity. The Minister is right to say there has been an increase in the number of paramedics, but the objective was to double the number of paramedics over a five- to six-year period because that is what was estimated was needed. I gave the Minister the figure that, for 2026, the target is 4,780. The Department and the HSE are telling me that, at best, it will reach 2,920. We are going to be somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 paramedics short.
In 2023, the Government cut the target response times for categories purple and red from 80% to 50% and from 75% to 45%, respectively, within the specified time period, but those targets are still not being met. The targets that were set are not being met in relation to response times, and the number of paramedics that we need is not being met. It is falling back on those paramedics who are in the system. They are clearly crying out to the Government, the Ministers and the HSE to say they are voting for strike action and voting no confidence in the management of the health service and the National Ambulance Service because they do not see the concrete actions that they need being taken.
I am very invested in resolving disputes, and that is why we put so much effort into the industrial relations architecture that we have. It is important to highlight some of the models of the proposed reforms under the agreement reached between union representatives and State representatives in those structures, for example, a modernised pay and allowance structure, which replaces a complex pay arrangement dating back to the late 1970s with a simpler, transparent structure aligned to wider HSE norms. It standardises overtime arrangements to HSE rates and incorporates rostered working requirements, including weekends and night working, to core pay structures. These are important reforms.
It is important that we discuss reform in the health service because while we can set a target of 4,000, if we are at 2,500, the Deputy and I both know that we have to deal with the practicality of today. There are 134 already in place out of the 180 posts that were funded towards the end of last year. We are desperately trying to recruit into all parts of the health service. However, it is not a realistic conversation for the Deputy and I to say that we are going to go from 2,500 to 4,000 within six months. We have to recruit where we can, and implement the reforms to make sure that everybody is working in different ways, including in a much more modernised structure. We cannot stand over one that comes from a pay structure from the 1970s.
Hospital Transfers
116. Deputy Marie Sherlock asked the Minister for Health the specific actions she has taken to radically reduce the record high levels of delayed transfers of care out of acute hospital settings, as seen in March and April 2026; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [28377/26]
I want to ask about delayed transfers of care. As the Minister knows, there is an enormous number across the acute hospitals at the moment. On 23 consecutive days between March and April-----
I am sorry. I have this question as "not submitted".
Is this question not related to delayed transfers of care?
It is Question No. 116.
I do not have a Priority Question from the Deputy. I will try to get an answer for her, but we have this question as "not submitted".
I believed I had resubmitted a Priority Question but, clearly, there was an issue with regard to it appearing on the Questions Paper.
To be clear, the question is on the Questions Paper.
I will do my best to answer.
On 23 consecutive days between March and April, the number of delayed transfers of care exceeded 500 across our acute hospitals, and again over the last six days. This has a major impact, not only on the people who are caught in hospitals who should no longer be there, but also on admissions. We saw that 129 people were waiting over 24 hours on Sunday night for admission to our emergency departments, 16 of them over the age of 75. It also has an impact on hospital activity, particularly with regard to the staggering reliance on surge capacity at the moment. What is being done with regard to step-down facilities across the health system at this point in time? There is a strong focus on the trolley numbers but, to my mind, insufficient focus on the step-down facilities.
My apologies for the mix-up, whatever the source. I will get the Deputy a full and more official answer. Nevertheless, I will speak from my own experience.
The focus on delayed transfers of care is an integral part of the focus on trolleys - the whole thing goes together. What we are really talking about is patient flow. Hospitals that experience ongoing delayed transfer of care, DTOC, problems include Letterkenny University Hospital, for example, where the number was in the 40s, but is now down in the 30s and moving towards 25. Directly across the road, there is a 100-bed community nursing unit that will open in 2026 and take some of the pressure off.
It is also about the management of this. For example, in Galway, we have gone through a deliberate reset. This speaks to the Deputy's example. The last week in Galway hospital was not good. It lost some of its private capacity for egress or transferring out of the hospital, and because that happened, the trolley numbers built up, and it has had seven very poor days. In the previous 25 days, it had only two red days, 22 green days and one amber day. In the 25 days before that, that was essentially inverted, and it was all red and maybe one green. Patient flow matters, and it matters all the time. It matters because of the impact on people in emergency departments, but it also matters to the hospital's ability to bring in inpatient day cases. As the Deputy highlighted, the use of surge means hospitals cannot do endoscopy investigations and so on. They cannot bring in non-time-critical electives. Of course, they bring in time-critical electives like cancer surgery, but not non-time-critical electives.
That is why the focus on urgent and emergency care, UEC, is important. It is a complete piece. There is no point in focusing on UEC without making sure they have a full awareness of what is available in the nursing homes. University Hospital Waterford does that particularly well. It has visibility in its patient control room of all of the passages out of the hospital. There are others that could do it dramatically better, such as Letterkenny University Hospital, and many of those have a DTOC problem, except for St. James's Hospital, which is a weird one that I will come back to.
The Minister referred to beds and management. When I talk to a number of the hospitals that are experiencing some of the worst problems with transferring those patients, there is a huge absence of neurorehabilitation beds and dementia-specific beds. In particular, we know that in Cherry Orchard, two wards have been closed for almost the past two years, supposedly for fire remediation works. The Killarney Community Nursing Unit was ready a year and a half ago, but has yet to be opened. We know that at South Infirmary, there are beds closed that should be open. We know that at a facility that is due to open in Blarney, as I understand it, the governance is due to lie with the Mercy Hospital, which has no neuro responsibilities because they are with Cork University Hospital.
The question concerns the decision-making and the management. It makes no sense to me that the sole responsibility for this lies with the hospital itself. What is the community element? In particular, what is the IHA doing to try to address these issues?
The Deputy is 100% right. It does not necessarily lie with the hospital management. For example, in Cork, with the IHA managers, there is no governance element to this. They are not CUH beds or Mercy Hospital beds, and nobody had better tell me that they think they are. They are beds for the south west, and they have to be managed from a single centre, which happens to be in CUH at the moment, but we will see about that. They have to have visibility over what is the situation in Blarney, Bantry, Mallow, South Infirmary and other places. It is their whole responsibility to be able to move people through.
As for the hospital managers' responsibility, I do not want to hear from consultants who say they cannot move X patient because they need to be in CUH instead of the very good care in Mallow. There needs to be an understanding that every hospital sits within a region, and patient flow works in that way. That is the only way this can possibly work. I am glad to hear the Deputy highlight that because it is the sort of reinforcement I need, particularly in the south west, to make sure that the patient flow experience is fully understood and that every bed is opened.
As regards the Killarney unit, I am told that will be in the next couple of weeks. There was a HIQA registration problem and there is engagement with the union but, frankly, it is not good enough that those beds and other beds have not been opened. Mallow's 24 beds were supposed to be opened in quarter 1. It will now be very shortly but it should have been done.
When I look at the Minister's letter of determination to the HSE this year, or arising from the budget, I see the big emphasis on home care support and very little emphasis on the construction of new step-down beds. We know that the vast majority of those being constructed at the moment are replacement beds. I think there are many reasons there is a need for step-down beds. I know my colleague, Deputy Conor Sheehan, had figures with regard to those who were exiting into homelessness.
One other issue I want to introduce to the conversation regards under-65s with dementia and other acquired brain injuries in hospitals who have nowhere to go. When I asked the Minister's Department last week about care of the under-65s in nursing homes, I was told that this was not the responsibility of the Department of Health. If it is not the responsibility of the Department of Health - of course, the Minister sets the funding for the HSE - then whose is it? I do not accept that it is fully the responsibility of the Minister for disability because she does not control the HSE budget but we need to be very clear to those families out there who want an alternative to nursing homes for their children under the age of 65 who are adults.
I understand. For example, I visited a facility very like that. Please forgive me; I do not have the name in front of me but it is in the north of Dublin, an acquired brain injury-----
An Saol.
That is exactly it. Forgive me. It is looking to build the facility adjacent to the primary care centre.
It is residential there.
Exactly. What we can do is work with an approved housing body, AHB, to build that residential. The HSE is for delivery of healthcare and we try to make it work as well as we can but here are the things we are not: we are not a transport company and we do not build homes. What we can do is partner with AHBs to make sure we are developing long-term residential that is adjacent and appropriate for needs of that kind.
On that site in particular, what we are looking at is what capacity we can have for people who need to come to that facility and that form of residential. We are trying to work with the sites we have adjacent to a primary care centre. I used that example because I happened to be there so recently.
The Deputy is right about acquired brain injury and dementia but the HSE has to focus on healthcare and partner with bodies like approved housing bodies that are experts in building housing.
There is HSE money going to nursing homes. They are residential facilities.
I would rather it did not.
Healthcare Policy
117. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Minister for Health the model that the Sláintecare programme board will operate on following the appointment of a new HSE CEO and a new Secretary General at her Department; the reason her Sláintecare implementation plan for 2025-plus does not have year-to-year measurable actions for 2026 onwards; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [28518/26]
I am seeking an update, if I can, on the Sláintecare programme board and how that will operate, given that we have a new CEO of the HSE and, indeed, a new Secretary General in the Minister's Department. I wish to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Bernard Gloster and Mr. Robert Watt for their many years of service, two people I have worked closely with and have a very high regard for. I also want to wish Ms Anne O'Connor and Mr. Derek Tierney the very best as well. We obviously want them to succeed. They are two highly professional people who I have a lot of faith in and I know they will do lots of good things.
During the previous Dáil, the leaders of the Sláintecare programme board were the heads of the Department and the HSE. Will that continue? I also refer to the implementation plan, which I think ended in 2025. We need an updated implementation plan with clear timeframes and targets so that the new CEO and the Department head actually have a plan to work to.
I thank the Deputy, and I join him in thanking the Secretary General, Mr. Robert Watt, and the previous CEO of the HSE, Mr. Bernard Gloster, who both did outstanding work in the Department of Health and the HSE in different ways. They have really stabilised and improved the service more broadly since 2022 in particular and I thank them for that. I also wish both the new Secretary General, Mr. Derek Tierney, and the new CEO, Ms Anne O'Connor, well in their new roles, which are very significant roles for everybody.
Notwithstanding those changes in personnel, there is no change to the programme of work. That needs to continue. We remain fully committed to the Sláintecare vision. The next meeting of the Sláintecare programme board will take place on 28 April. At that meeting, progress across all of the Sláintecare projects will be reviewed in respect of the action plan for 2026, the second of three action plans under Path to Universal Healthcare: Sláintecare & Programme for Government 2025+. The Deputy knows what they are. For quarter 1 alone, this includes 90 actions across 12 Sláintecare projects. In total, the programme board oversees 23 projects with approximately 400 actions. What does that mean? It relates to reforms being driven through, for example, with the enhanced community care programme, the public-only consultant contract, POCC, and, crucially, the implementation of the POCC, the digital health transformation and women's health. It is envisaged that the same structure will be co-chaired by the new Secretary General and the HSE chair, so there will not be a change there, which I think is very welcome. That is really the answer to the Deputy's question.
I welcome some of what the Minister said but the problem is there are not clear deliverables and timeframes in the current Sláintecare action plan. That is something that has to change. I want to see, for example, changes to the medical card and GP card thresholds. There have not really been any substantial changes to medical card eligibility in a long time. The big reform that the health service needs, from an acute hospital perspective, is delivering the elective hospitals. If you really want to deal with waiting lists, then build the four elective hospitals as quickly as possible. I guarantee that that will give us capacity to deal with lots of the planned procedures that need to be done, separating scheduled from unscheduled care.
I am big believer in a seven-day-week health service.
I know.
I know the Minister is. When she is pushing forward those reforms, I will be supporting them, as I did with the public-only consultant contract because we needed it. We have to get bang for our buck. I agree that we need reforms and efficiencies but we also need capacity. If we do not have the diagnostic capacity, the bed capacity and the staff in our hospitals, then it is more difficult to reach our targets and actually get the reforms. It is a combination of all of that, and all of that is obviously part of Sláintecare.
I agree and I thank the Deputy for his support on these reform programmes. He is right about the elective hospitals but before then, we have the opportunity with the surgical hubs, which will be delivered in 2026. The delivery of the surgical hubs is going to create all sorts of different waves. We are looking at what procedures need to go there immediately and what that will free up in the hospitals where they would otherwise have been done. How is that going to be staffed and when? I am looking at the National Treatment Purchase Fund, NTPF, buying capacity in our own hospitals but I am also looking at underutilised capacity in our own hospitals, like the endoscopy suite in Bantry. There are two of them. One of them is used a half a day per week. We have appointed additional people specifically to Bantry but how can that be, and why are we buying any endoscopy action in that area? Why is there endoscopy happening in Roscommon when there is a very good suite there that does not operate after a certain part of the day? How are we using our own resources and how are we going to collectively, as the political leadership in health here, make sure that we are using the assets we have as we build? The elective hospitals are entirely necessary but we have capacity that is not being used. There is room after room in different hospitals and we are not using them.
I could not agree more. I have been saying this for a long time. I am a big supporter of the surgical hubs. There is one coming in my own constituency adjacent to University Hospital Waterford, so I know the difference that will make. I fully agree that we have to look at how to take pressure away from our acute and major hospitals, for example, more off-site rooms for outpatient activity where we can free up clinical space. I am in favour of all of that. I am fully on board with a seven-day-week health service. I want all of that to happen, but for the efficiencies to happen, there also have to be the resources.
While the surgical hubs will be a game-changer, I can tell the Minister for a fact that the elective hospitals will be an even bigger game-changer. I am saying that to her because there will be push-back from consultants. I have got it in relation to the elective hospitals. They want the low-lying fruit still in public hospitals. It is why insourcing was so profitable and something they were trying to protect. We have to protect public patients, get value for money and efficiencies but also reduce waiting times. I guarantee that if the elective hospitals are built, the Minister will see some of those wait times in orthopaedics and other areas come down rapidly. It will be the biggest reform that could be made in the health service.
I totally agree with the Deputy and I think we will get there with Galway and Cork much more quickly. I would like to discuss with all Deputies options around Dublin because clearly we have the option in relation to Connolly hospital. The Deputy may have noticed that we put in some high-dependency unit, HDU, beds in advance because that is really going to be an important enabler. We did that in the past number of weeks. We put the staff in to have significantly expanded HDU capacity in Connolly hospital with a view to where that goes for the elective.
It is well worth us considering constructively the best other use of brownfield space that is available within other Dublin hospitals, how we might consider that as alternative elective capacity and what we do with Crumlin. It is a useful open conversation that we should have. More than anything else, I need Deputies' help with the implementation of the public-only consultant contract and five over seven.
I cannot have the NTPF buying activity in hospitals from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. and not have consultants rostered at those times. That intersection is going to be really important between surgical hubs, the NTPF and the actual rostering. I am going to need Deputies' help.
Assisted Human Reproduction
118. Deputy Pádraig Rice asked the Minister for Health the timeline for the full commencement of the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024; to provide an update on the drafting of supplementary assisted human reproduction legislation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [28695/26]
I begin by welcoming the commencement of section 232 of the assisted human reproduction Act which took place yesterday, and the changes to the Children and Family Relationships Act that resulted. This provides a pathway to parentage for some donor-conceived children. I know there were celebrations in many households across the country who benefit from those changes, which are welcome. When does the Minister intend to commence the rest of the Act and what is the update on the supplementary legislation that is required?
I thank the Deputy for his ongoing engagement on this. As he knows as well as I do, this makes a huge difference to families around the country. Much progress has been made now. The Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024 was signed into law by the President in July 2024. I have a difficulty with a definitive timeline as to the complete commencement of the AHR legislation as there are a number of interdependencies and considerations involved, not least the timing that I do not control over a Supreme Court case. On the full commencement of that and the full application of the legislation, there is an interdependency there that is outside of my hands. The others include the second Bill, the AHR amendment Bill being enacted, and the regulatory authority being fully operational. I can give the Deputy an update on what is happening with that, but there is also an important relevant Supreme Court judgment pending. I understand the case is due for mention on Monday, 27 April but it will be very difficult for us to get to Committee Stage without that having been resolved. That is really important.
As the Deputy is aware, our formal drafting of the AHR Bill is at an advanced stage. It is very substantive. It is on the priority list for publication. Department officials in my Department are scheduled to meet with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel tomorrow to discuss what is expected to be one of the final drafts and I expect to be in a position to introduce it to the Dáil this term.
Some administrative sections of the 2024 Act have been commenced, specifically to establish the Assisted Human Reproduction Regulatory Authority, as the Deputy knows. The Deputy mentioned that three subsections of section 232 of the 2024 Act have been commenced. It is complex and there are very many slightly competing and multifaceted perspectives to be considered. We are going to have to think about the sequencing of some of it but I hope to advance it as quickly as I can.
I thank the Minister. I welcome the commitment to advance it because the pace of change has been far too slow. It is now 26 years since the commission on AHR, four years since the Oireachtas Committee on International Surrogacy, and seven months since the health committee published our report providing pre-legislative scrutiny of the legislation. There is real frustration about the delays here. We need to see urgent progress.
In relation to the case, and I mentioned this to the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, when we debated this in December, the State's failure to legislate has resulted in these cases. In the absence of legislation, people had no option but to go to the court to try to vindicate their rights. This will continue. We will have more people going to the courts trying to vindicate their rights in the absence of legislation. We need to pass the Bill. I have no doubt that, in some cases, there are people threatening the Minister with legal action who would withdraw that, but it is the absence of legislation. We have created this mess by delaying the legislation and by not progressing it in the 26 years since the commission published its report.
The Deputy is a practical person, as am I. If a court case is before the Supreme Court, then there is a court case before the Supreme Court and there is nothing I can do about that. I would be in breach of my own responsibility not to cross over in the separation of powers were I to do anything other that wait for the outcome of that. I do not have any discretion in relation to that. As for people threatening to take legal cases, people are entirely entitled to take legal cases if they wish to do so. That is the essence of being an Irish citizen. There is no quid pro quo in relation to it. I am dealing with what I am trying to get resolved now. The reality is that we are advancing the legislation. We will not be able to take it to Committee Stage until the Supreme Court case is determined. It is not that I wish to be in that situation; I do not wish to be. That is simply the factual reality of that situation. There is nothing I can do about that but I will do everything that I can control as quickly as possible.
I do think it is a situation of the Government's making. People absolutely have the right to take cases but people do not want to go before the courts. These families do not want to have the legal costs and the stress imposed on them by going before the courts. I think the Minister would agree with me that we need to expand personal freedoms generally in this republic. We need to vindicate the right to procreation, the right to private and family life and reproductive freedoms. There is much work left to be done, in particular the rights of the child, the rights of their parents and greater equality more broadly. This is a key part of that. I really hope that we get this legislation enacted and commenced, and that we are not waiting and waiting because we have waited long enough.
I agree with the Deputy. Indeed, this is something I have been involved with in different ways since working in the Department of children and since advancing the Children and Family Relationships Act, as I did when I worked in the Department of justice in 2013. I have been working on this for a really long time and I share the Deputy's frustration. I want to see people having access to families where they can.
We need to speak about rights in totality, however. Yes, there is a right to family, a right to procreate and all of those different things. There is also a right, and we have an obligation as an outward-looking country, to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect everyone else. I am not saying this specifically to this but I do remember questions, when I started working here and we were dealing with, for example, adoption, the Hague Convention and the restrictions that were put in place because some of our actions at that stage were, frankly, exploitative or potentially exploitative. That was pulled back and for good reason. It changed the adoption rules for the future and they were very significant changes that were made. There were people who felt that they had a right in a particular way, but those rights always have to be balanced and because we are an outward-looking, humanitarian society, we have to take the rights of everybody into account. I know the Deputy will be at the front of that, having advanced looking at things through a human rights lens. There is more than one human involved in these and we have to be careful and balanced. I am not trying to limit anybody but I just have to say it as well.
Mental Health Services
119. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Minister for Health to provide an update on the delivery of new outpatient mental health capacity and mental health beds, as previously announced in the HSE capital plan for Waterford and the south east; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [28519/26]
I am looking for an update on the replacement of the existing adult mental health 44-bed unit at University Hospital Waterford with a 50-bed single bed unit. I acknowledge the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, in making sure this was on the current capital plan recently. I was criticised in one local newspaper for doing so.
I heard that, too.
I think the criticism was because there was frustration that developments can be glacial and it takes a long time for these projects to get over the line. There are other projects I want to talk about, which I will later. On this particular project, it is important to have timeframes as to how quickly we can expect this development might be delivered, which I think we all accept would be massive and a game-changer for mental health services in Waterford.
I thank the Deputy. The frustration that many people feel I have felt as well for quite a while. When it was announced initially in 2020 or 2021, we were in the middle of Covid. It was then held up for three years by the clinicians. At the time, I was very frustrated with them but I agree with them now. They did not want the new approved centre, the new department of psychiatry in UHW, to be, as was proposed, on the site adjacent but not connected to it. It is now going to be connected.
I have allocated over €40 million for capital projects this year, including for the next stages for the acute mental health unit at Waterford. The project will move to design feasibility this quarter when a design team will be appointed for the new unit. Most importantly, because of delays, we are now moving from a 50-bed unit to a 60-bed unit. There is going to be an extra ten beds for psychiatry of later life. We have an ageing population and it is really important for people who have enduring mental health conditions, as they age, that they would also be able to get those supports if needed.
It will be built immediately behind the Dunmore Wing, which the Deputy knows very well. He visited it with me previously. It will come out immediately behind the Dunmore Wing as part of the department of psychiatry that is there at the moment. The current car park will be lost but I spoke to the general manager of the hospital about that and he said it was a small price to pay for this new development. We expect it is going to cost in the region of at least €50 million. I met with HSE estates recently in St. Otteran's campus. I was visiting psychiatry of later life there and we went through it. We can discuss the other pieces shortly. The good news is that the design team will be appointed very shortly, I am hoping in the next few weeks, and we will finally make the progress. The funding has been provided.
I very much hope that the new adult mental health unit will progress as quickly as possible. I agree with the location and I want to see it developed as fast as it can be. There was also a promise for a 96-bed ward block over five storeys at University Hospital Waterford, and a multi-storey car park. The Minister of State issued a press statement a number of years ago where she said there was a proposal for a two-floor vertical extension over the existing outpatients department, to provide an additional 36 consulting rooms, four treatment rooms, four measurement rooms and two virtual consultation rooms.
I do not know the status of that plan at the moment. I have been tabling parliamentary questions seeking updates on all of these projects. We need the additional 96 beds, we need the underground car park and we need the two-storey extension to the lab, but we also need the vertical two-storey extension that the Minister of State talked about and all that additional space. The frustration is that these projects are listed in the capital plan, or maybe some of them are not now listed. People do not know if we are going to get them, if they are funded or how quickly they will be delivered. We all want the best for our regional and local hospitals. I raise these projects because they are really important in the context of University Hospital Waterford.
The question the Deputy asked was about the HSE capital plan for Waterford and the south east in relation to mental health and mental health beds. I can speak to that. In relation to the other issues the Deputy mentioned, I do not have the relevant information but I discussed it when I had the meeting with HSE estates. On the two-storey vertical extension, the vertical overhang as it is called, my understanding is that the management at the hospital has made a different decision in relation to that and thinks that it should be a stand-alone building on the hospital grounds. I understand the new consultant-only contract is the reason for that.
I was delighted to secure funding for a ten-bed unit in the Wexford area. As the Deputy knows, since St. Loman's closed in 2010 or 2011, we have been getting patients from the Wexford area, which was a long journey for them. We are also looking at putting in a new ten- or 12-bed unit in Wexford.
I raise these issues to illustrate the point that when announcements are made, people expect things to be delivered and then ask how quickly they will get them. If there is an announcement regarding additional health capacity, that is really good news. It is exciting, and people want it. When people hear about the announcement of an additional 60-bed ward block over five storeys at University Hospital Waterford but then do not see it and when I am putting in parliamentary questions and cannot get answers on the timeframe for it to happen, that causes frustration. There was a clear announcement of a proposal for a two-floor vertical extension with all of those consultation and treatment rooms to come with it. We are now being told there is a change to that. We still do not know what that means and when the facility will be built, which also leads to frustration.
It is the same with the multi-storey car park. In fact, it is the same with the mental health unit as well. I do not doubt that the Minister of State is pushing these issues; I accept that 100%. All I am saying is that there is frustration that when announcements are made by local Ministers or senior Ministers, they then seem to either fall off a cliff or take far too long to go anywhere. That causes frustration, particularly when we cannot get answers to parliamentary questions when we table them.
It is important acknowledge the surgical hub. Earlier, the Deputy said he is a fan of surgical hubs. Some €90 million in capital investment is being spent on the surgical hub. I was delighted to be there last year, along with the Minister, to turn the sod on it, even though it was well under way at the time and will be open before Christmas, which is really important. Another piece of good news is that a site has been identified in Waterford city for a new ambulance base, which is also really important. I do not have any detail on the 96-bed unit the Deputy mentioned. I guarantee that I have also raised everything he has raised here. It is really important that we see progress.
I want to put this on the record of the Dáil. Improving capital infrastructure for mental health services a key priority for me. I was delighted to work with the Minister recently to secure an unprecedented €470 million in capital investment for mental health over the next five years under the National Development Plan 2026-2030. That has never happened before, and I think everybody will welcome it.