I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Troy.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit as a bheith linn inniu. This matter relates to the need for Ireland to introduce incentivised savings and investment accounts for Irish savers. It is reported that in excess of €163 billion worth of Irish household savings are currently lying in deposit accounts in banks, earning limited interest and not being invested in the economy. In particular, approximately 85% of this money is in overnight accounts where it earns little to no interest. In reality, any value which it is raising is being eaten by inflation. At the same time, there is a significant push at EU level to get more of Europe’s savings invested in building the innovativeness, competitiveness and productivity Europe's economy needs. This has led to the so-called savings and investment union, SIU.

Just this morning, the European Commission issued a recommendation to member states to encourage them to establish incentivised savings and investment accounts which would encourage savers to invest in accessible investment products backed by shares and bonds.

The Commission has recommended tax incentives for such accounts. This recommendation is all about getting savings invested in the real economy, including in financing the growth and scaling of indigenous enterprise. The Commission's recommendation will mean nothing to many EU states which already have savings and investment account models, including France, Italy, Sweden and Poland. Not just in the EU but closer to home in the UK, they have a long-established ISA model. Ireland has nothing. We do not have any bank which provides equity services, not since the SSIA, which 1.1 million Irish people took up. As a result, Ireland has been an outlier with none of our retail banks offering accessible equity-based investment accounts to savers where such offerings are the norm throughout Europe and provided in most member states.

There has been a growing chorus of calls for an Irish savings and investment account from the banks, to Insurance Ireland and, most recently, to Davys and Euronext Dublin. Polling commissioned by Euronext Dublin found that half of Irish savers say they would put some of their savings into accessible investment accounts if their banks offered it. This rockets to a 74% uptake if the Government were to add a tax incentive. The campaign has now been validated by the recommendation from the European Commission. Brussels has issued a call to action but national governments need to take up the gauntlet and, in our case, announce that Ireland will establish an Irish model of savings and investment accounts. If the Government moved quickly, we could potentially have this in place before Ireland takes up the EU Presidency in July of next year. We need to unlock the €163 billion idling on deposit and get it working for the Irish economy and for our savers. Savers, scale-ups and Irish capital markets would all win. I urge the Minister of State that now is the time for the Government to act.

I thank the Senator for raising this important and topical issue. It is also a timely issue, as today the European Commission adopted its savings and investment account recommendation as part of the savings and investments union, SIU, strategy.

Despite the impact of the higher cost of living in recent years, Irish households continue to have substantial savings, with approximately €160 billion in household savings on deposit in Irish banks. Some €9 of every €10 of these savings is held in low-interest, overnight deposit accounts, meaning savers are getting little return for their money. The stark truth is, because of global inflationary pressures, this money is actually losing value.

Discussions on encouraging citizens to invest more has been part of the savings and investments union strategy which the EU Commission launched in March. The central thrust of this initiative is to help citizens to invest more so as to increase the amount of money they have in their retirement and to use the invested money to energise businesses, bringing more growth to the economy. From my engagements across the financial services sector since taking this role, I am particularly confident that Ireland has the right infrastructure across talent and technology to be a key player in the SIU. We must acknowledge that the infrastructure deficit we have across housing, water and renewable energy cannot be solved by Government funding alone. Private capital is necessary to achieve our aims.

The SIU strategy includes measures to advance the capital markets union project. Included in this strategy is a commitment to adopt a European blueprint for savings and investment accounts. This blueprint is meant to offer member states a codification of best practice in terms of savings and investment accounts in the EU.

Here at home, last October, the Minister for Finance published the Funds Sector 2030: A Framework for Open, Resilient and Developing Markets report. The report was timely given the interest in growing retail and savings and investments in both Ireland and the new mandate of the European Commission in the context of the SIU proposal.

At the national level, we are reviewing the recommendations from this wide-ranging review of the funds and asset management sector. Part of the review focused on encouraging retail investment. As part of this aspect of the review, the development of an incentivised retail savings and investment account was considered. The report made eight recommendations on the topic of retail investment, including recommendations to better align the tax on investment funds and life assurance products with that of direct equities by removing deemed disposal and aligning the rate of tax to 33%. The report noted that there may be merit in exploring an incentivised savings and investment account in due course. Developments at EU level in the context of the savings and investment union will have relevance in this regard.

While the report concluded that measures proposed for amending the existing taxation of investment funds and life assurance products should be prioritised, the Commission’s recommendations published today demonstrate the importance of savings and investment accounts within the SIU, which is an important point for consideration.

The programme for Government has committed to progressing and publishing an implementation plan taking into consideration the funds review recommendations to unlock retail investment and opportunities to grow the sector in Ireland. Detailed consideration is therefore being given to the best way to support a greater level of retail investment in capital markets and the necessary reforms required. It is likely, given the breadth of the funds review and the complexity of the relevant regimes for the taxation of investment, that the delivery of associated tax measures may take place over multiple Finance Bill cycles.

In line with the Senator’s query, we will continue to consider such proposals in this important area. This work will also take account of developments at an EU level in respect of the savings and investments union and, in particular, the Commission's recommendation on increasing the availability of savings and investment accounts.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am glad to see that, with respect to many of my previous comments, we seem to be very much on the same page. I note he acknowledged the report from the European Commission today.

On the Minister of State’s comments on the reduction of the exit tax on investment funds, I welcome the measure, but this change will primarily benefit those who already have or are inclined to invest in an investment fund. Progressing this exit tax reduction should not prevent the establishment of an Irish model of savings and investment accounts in line with what is in the European Commission's report today. I fail to see why the progress being made and the reports and suggestions being reviewed, covering retail investments, should prevent us from introducing savings and investment funds for normal borrowers and normal savers.

If you look at all the money in deposit tax, the return from the DIRT, you will know that swapping over to investment would come at a relatively low cost to the Exchequer. We have a budget coming out next week and it is vital that we consider making this part of it. I appreciate that such a measure may not be part of the coming budget, but encouragement should be given by indicating this is the way we are going and that we are moving forward at a more rapid pace.

To be abundantly clear, I fully agree with the Senator. Irish savers are depriving themselves of a better return on hard-earned savings. A huge opportunity exists now, particularly in the context of the savings and investments union of the EU Commission, which, as the Senator said, only today published a recommendation on a new savings and investment account. The Irish Government has been a very strong supporter of the savings and investments union, and now the responsibility comes back to the Irish Government to interrogate the recommendations from the Commission this morning and come forward with proposals for Irish savers. A lot of good work has been done in the context of the funds review and the recommendations that emanated from that, and we as a Government need to push ahead with the implementation of those recommendations. We also need to come forward with a concrete proposal on a new savings and investment account. I am meeting my colleague the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, later today to discuss just that and how this budget next week can, I hope, commence with measures that will incentivise people to be more ambitious with their savings, thereby getting a better return for themselves, and invest in products that the Irish Government will be able to use to reinvest to make up our infrastructure deficit. I thank the Senator for having given me an opportunity to raise here today what is a very topical issue.

For the next Commencement matter, we will be joined by the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy. I thank Minister of State, Deputy Troy for being with us to answer the question from Senator Lynch.

I want to raise the issue of the closure of the courthouse in Donegal town. The courthouse is located in Tirconaill Street and is a building of significant architectural and historical importance dating back to the 19th century. No warning was given about this closure. A letter was simply sent to a businessman and nobody was informed. The Donegal people are very concerned that the building could be closed permanently. I am asking for the Minister for justice to clarify a few things.

Are there plans to refurbish and reopen the courthouse? What assessments have been carried out regarding the building's condition and the future of the courthouse? Is there funding in place to preserve this important civic building? This issue is not about infrastructure; it is about maintaining the presence of justice in our community and respecting the heritage of Donegal town. I hope the Minister of State can clarify this issue. Donegal town has lost so much in the past year, including the Donegal Education Support Centre, DESC. We cannot allow the same to happen to the courthouse.

On behalf of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. The Minister has advised that Donegal courthouse will be closed temporarily as a result of health and safety concerns. Work has been ongoing with the Office of Public Works in order to determine the required works and the associated costs. The main and most serious safety issues relate to the entrances for both the public and courthouse users and the judge. Both of the ceilings in the public entrance porch have partially collapsed.

In November 2023, the OPW provided a costing for the repair of the flat roofs at the courthouse. These works were approved by the Courts Service and communicated to the OPW. However, the OPW subsequently advised that the existing roof would also need to be replaced due to its condition. Based on that advice, the OPW was asked to provide a costing for the repairs required for the roof in its entirety, which was forwarded to the Courts Service in August 2025. A further on-site meeting with the OPW took place on 2 September 2025. During those discussions, it became apparent that further investigative works would be necessary to determine if any additional structural and associated works were required. The OPW has indicated that opening-up works will be required to facilitate the completion of a structural survey of the building.

The Courts Service was further advised about the concerns the OPW had regarding the continued use of the building in its current state. The Minister is advised that the OPW has organised for a full building conditions survey to be carried out, including a mechanical and electrical conditions survey. The OPW is awaiting a timeline and costing for this survey. The outcome of the survey will inform the next steps in relation to the courthouse in Donegal. The regional office intends to explore whether there are any suitable temporary venues within Donegal town.

I thank the Minister of State. When he returns to the Minister, I plead with him to ensure that, no matter what happens, we have to keep the courthouse in Donegal town. It has been there a long time. It really adds to the town with barristers coming in, coffee shops, etc. Donegal town has lost so much in the past year with the DESC moving to Letterkenny. The courthouse's roof might need to be structurally redone as well as electrical and other works, but it is a matter of the utmost importance that we keep the courthouse in Donegal town. It sets the tone for the whole area regarding justice and keeps it where it needs to be in Donegal town. I implore the Minister of State that, when he goes back to the Minister, he tells him that the people of Donegal town and south-west Donegal want their building refurbished, reopened and kept in Donegal town.

The Senator has raised this very important issue and made his views very clear. I will make sure that they are passed on to and directly heard by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, as regards the importance of maintaining the courthouse in Donegal. To provide an update, the Minister has indicated that the Courts Service is initially looking at a move to Ballyshannon on a temporary basis. That is approximately 20 km away and 20 minutes by car.

I will point out the importance of looking for a suitable venue in Donegal town, as the Senator indicated. He made his case very clear on that. The regional manager of the Courts Service is working to ensure that all of the relevant people, including the Presidents of the Circuit and District Courts, the relevant Circuit and District Court judges, the country registrar, the coroner in the court, An Garda Síochána and practitioners, are informed of the current situation, as there may be a need to move sittings from 1 October.

This Commencement matter is very pressing and immediate and the Senator's concerns are very appropriate. I will make sure that the Minister is made aware of them.

I thank the Minister of State and the Senator. I thank the Minister of State for coming here. We value his attendance here today.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Dillon, to the House.

I ask the Minister of State to update the House on the position that Ireland will be, and has been, taking to date in relation to the proposed renewed EU-Morocco trade agreement, which is due for decision at the European Council tomorrow. This relates to an amendment of protocols 1 and 4 to the previous EU-Moroccan agreement. The need for the change to the protocols comes from a Court of Justice of the EU, CJEU, ruling in October 2024 whereby the court annulled the application of the previous 2019 EU-Morocco trade deal in relation to Western Sahara because the Sahrawi people had not given their consent to that agreement. The court set a one-year deadline for the EU to bring its actions into line with international law. There has been an entire year for action to have been taken but it is important to look at the timeline here. We have seen no public action, nothing shared in the public domain and no clear consultation until July, when the European Commission produced a proposed negotiated agreement, which was only brought to the European Council on 10 September. Then we were told, with the Commission only given a mandate to negotiate this trade agreement on 10 September, that magically it was all negotiated by 18 September. In one week this supposedly, as we were told constantly, very complex and very nuanced issue which has serious implications for international law and EU compliance with same, was settled.

There are huge questions on that timeline and there are also questions around the nature of the agreement. We have now, in the public domain, the text of what is being proposed and what has been brought to the European Council. We know that the European Commission did not consult with the Polisario Front which is the privileged interlocutor, according to the CJEU and, according to UN Security Council Resolution No. 658, the sole legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people. The Sahrawi people are required to either consent or for there to be demonstrable, tangible benefit for them which does not lead to obligations. Those were the conditions that the court set out but the EU did not speak to the Sahrawi people. We also know that the proposal is that there would be intensified trade with the areas of the Western Sahara that are occupied by Morocco, with no differentiation to ensure that these benefits or additional privileges of trade given to Western Sahara are not in fact just being given to Moroccan settlers and Moroccan companies illegally operating who will now have even further access to the European market on an even more preferential basis. This is literally like rewarding Israeli settlers in the West Bank as a way to supposedly address the fact of the illegal occupation of the West Bank. That is the kind of analogy we are looking at here.

What position will Ireland be taking tomorrow on the signature? Has the Government been engaged in this process? Has the Government sought amendments to the negotiating position that was proposed in July? Did the Government engage with the Polisario Front? Does it recognise the dangers inherent in the EU declaration which will actively incentivise further Moroccan settlement and illegal occupation of Western Sahara? Has the Government encouraged the Commission to seek explicit consent from the Sahrawi people rather than simply saying that it will provide a little bit of humanitarian aid and will give some money to somebody and it might trickle down to them? What has Ireland been doing and what will Ireland do tomorrow?

I thank Senator Higgins for raising this important matter at a critical junction of EU external trade policy and international law.

While it is a complex and sensitive issue, I appreciate the opportunity to outline Ireland's position.

On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the ruling of the General Court of 29 September 2021 annulling the Council decision on the conclusion of the 2018 agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. This agreement concerned the amendment of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled the people of Western Sahara must give their consent to any new agreement concluded by the EU. In the view of the court, the right to self-determination belongs to that people, and not only to the population of that territory in general, which for the most part has been displaced. This consent may be either given explicitly or implicitly. In the particular case of a people of the non-self-governing territory, the court ruled the consent of that people to an international agreement, in which it has the status of a third party, and which is to be applied in the territory to which its right to self-determination relates, may be presumed so long as certain conditions are satisfied. First, the agreement in question must not give rise to an obligation for that people. Second, it must provide for the proportional benefit of that people. This decision required a negotiation of a new trade deal between the EU and Morocco and the court set a deadline of 4 October 2025. Ireland has taken note of the judgment of the CJEU and the specifics of the judgment with regard to Western Sahara.

In July 2025, the Commission submitted to the Council a recommendation for a Council decision concerning the opening of negotiations on the amendment of the 2018 agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. The negotiations on the replacement agreement commenced in September with a view to meeting the deadline of 4 October 2025. As the process has evolved, Ireland has kept progress in those negotiations under review to ensure any new proposed arrangements respect the conditions established by the court and the duty of the European Union to comply with both EU and international law. Ireland continues to be guided by these principles. Ireland’s long-standing position on Western Sahara is one of full support for the UN-led process, including the MINURSO mission and the efforts of the personal envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Western Sahara, Staffan de Mistura, to achieve a political solution to this long-standing dispute. It is our hope that these efforts will help to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

Both Ireland and the European Union support the efforts of the United Nations to find an acceptable political solution that would provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. Ireland does not have a view on the outcome of that solution so long as it is approved in a genuine exercise of self-determination.

I do not believe Ireland is being very supportive. First of all, we pulled out of the MINURSO mission and do not have anybody there anymore. Also, if we are so keen to see the long-awaited referendum, why have we not taken any advantage of this opportunity? This is a point at which Morocco's trade with the European Union and much of its relationship with it depended on, potentially, the requirement for consent to be sought. Why did we not push for explicit consent? Why was that not sought? If one looks for explicit consent, one then has an opportunity to fast-track, after decades, the requirement for a referendum. Why was that political opportunity missed? Does the Government recognise the danger of incentivising and financially rewarding settlers and Moroccan businesses operating in occupied territories, given that we have made those arguments in respect of other occupied territories?

Does Ireland believe an opportunity has been missed by not seeking explicit consent and trying to fast track the referendum that would provide that?

I must note that the negotiations on the replacement agreement have not yet fully concluded in Brussels and any further comment would be inappropriate at this stage. However, I will say that Ireland's approach has been guided by two principles, namely, respect for the rule of law and support for the United Nations-led process on Western Sahara. I reiterate that Ireland continues to keep all aspects of the negotiation process under review to ensure that any proposed arrangements will respect the conditions established by the court but also the duty of the European Union to comply with EU and international law. Ireland will be guided by those principles in finalising our position. I wish to underline once again that Ireland's engagement on this issue will be guided by the European Court of Justice judgment and on the principles of international law.

With respect, the Minister of State did not answer my question and I am hoping that this means he will be voting against it tomorrow.

Sorry, Senator, we have to push on. I thank the Minister of State for staying with us.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in to discuss and debate this issue. As he is aware, Wexford town is the capital town of County Wexford. It is home to a population of about 21,500 people and, like many towns, it is experiencing very rapid population growth, with an increase of approximately 9% over the last census. One of the issues with the rise in population in Wexford town is access to secondary school places. At present in Wexford town we have five secondary schools: Wexford CBS, Loreto Secondary School, Selskar College, St. Peter's College and Presentation Secondary School. The issue is that it is currently not possible to facilitate all applicants who apply for a secondary school place in Wexford town. In the case of ten students whom I am giving a voice to today - I am aware of other cases as well - they applied for a secondary school place in Wexford town but unfortunately were not successful in the lottery system. This has meant that they have to travel now from Wexford town, 37 kilometres down the road to New Ross to attend Good Counsel College. This is a very good school and they have no issue doing that but they would have preferred to have a place in their local town, in Wexford town. The issue here is that the school rural transport guidelines at the moment only permit a school bus ticket for a student who is attending the closest school to them. Unfortunately, these students were locked out of the schools closest to them and find themselves now in a position where they cannot get a school bus ticket to attend the school they are now attending, Good Counsel College in New Ross. I would like to know, in the circumstances where the State has not been able to provide a secondary school place to these students in their local town, will the Department be willing to look at and re-examine the rules around these school bus tickets to ensure that there will be a school bus travelling from Wexford town to Good Counsel College, New Ross, to accommodate these students?

On behalf of the Minister of State with responsibility for special education and inclusion, I thank the Senator for raising this very important matter on behalf of the families he represents in Wexford. I know myself how important school transport is. It is the lifeline of many communities. I fully appreciate the urgency of the matter. As the Senator will know, the school transport scheme is a significant operation that is managed by Bus Éireann on behalf of the Department of Education and Youth. School transport is such an important service for families across the country and I am pleased to say that the scheme has expanded significantly over recent years thanks to continued Government investment ensuring more and more children are supported with access to it. The number of children and young people using the service has grown from under 120,000 pupils in 2018 to almost 178,000 pupils in 2025, which is a significant increase in the investment by any measure.

Notwithstanding this, as the Senator has mentioned, issues still arise where services are not in place. In this regard, and on specific issues raised by the Senator, Bus Éireann has advised that pupils residing in Wexford town are not eligible for school transport to Good Counsel College in New Ross as this would not be the nearest post-primary centre for the pupils concerned. Bus Éireann has further advised that there is no school transport scheme from Wexford town to the New Ross post-primary centre. The Minister of State recognises that the school transport scheme is vital to families in certain areas to support them in bringing their children to school.

The Minister of State also acknowledges that there is still work to do in the expansion of the school transport scheme as committed to in the programme for Government. This is supported by the analysis that has been undertaken as part of the school transport 2030 review, which demonstrates that school transport schemes play a really important role for many families. The review's recommendations detail how the provision of school transport can be expanded to over 260,000 children and young people with transport to and from school each day. Such expansion would have a hugely positive impact on working families and rural communities such as the Senator's in Wexford and will provide young people with self-confidence and independence. It would also reduce our carbon emissions and traffic congestion.

The recommendations are being pursued on a phased basis through pilots around the country and the intention is to advance these further in the years ahead. The continued growth of the school transport scheme is contingent on resources being made available and we would hope that budget 2026 will provide that opportunity. I know the Minister of State is committed to working to ensure funding is secured in each budget to fully fund these programme for Government commitments. While I do not hold direct responsibility in this area, I will raise the concerns the Senator has raised here today and bring them directly back to the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan.

I thank the Minister of State and welcome his commitment to engage with me on this issue. It is very important to point out that the reason these students are travelling from Wexford town to New Ross is they could not get access to a secondary school place in their home town of Wexford town. That is an anomaly in the current rules whereby the State has failed to provide them with a secondary school place at their closest secondary school and therefore is denying them a school bus ticket because they are not attending their local secondary school. Had these parents and students to do it again, they would have liked to have taken up a place in Wexford town but they now find themselves in a situation where they are attending New Ross. They are asking that the rules be changed, that flexibility be given and that they be provided with a school bus to accommodate them attending the school they are now attending.

I thank the Senator. Does the Minister of State wish to reply?

No.

Okay. I thank Senator Byrne. Before I go on, I welcome our guests on my right, who are guests of Deputy Keira Keogh. They are from the Mayo Self Advocacy Group and are from right across Mayo. They are all very welcome, and so is the councillor. On my left, I welcome the guests in the special Gallery. I thank them for coming and I hope both groups have an enjoyable stay here in the Oireachtas.

It will not come as any surprise to hear me talking about this Commencement matter. Coming from south Kildare, it is a topic that is very close to my heart. The military and defence family are very much part of the whole social, economic and professional fabric of Kildare and right around the country. Over the years, we have seen a lack of investment in our Defence Forces and we have a recruitment and retention problem, or challenge, I should say. It is really important that Government invests in recruitment and retention and in supporting the military families and the Defence Forces. Thanks to our present Taoiseach and outgoing Tánaiste, a really big commitment was ensured in both the Fianna Fáil manifesto and, subsequently, the programme for Government.

Part of the recommendations made by the commission, which were also accepted, related to the preservation and management of the Curragh Plains.

I appreciate that the Minister of State is here to take this Commencement matter on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, Simon Harris. We are all familiar with the Curragh, whether we are from Kildare or not. Many of us pass it regularly. It has an incredible history in terms of heritage and archaeology and it has very strong links with the racing industry, the defence industry and the sheep industry. Also, the flora and fauna there are quite unique to the whole area. However, there have been ongoing problems as regards the preservation and conservation of the Curragh Plains, not least of which are illegal encampments and waste management. Thankfully, this summer was not anywhere near as bad as previous summers. To be fair, those within the Department of Defence who have responsibility have acted quite quickly. A new regime is in place but the problem is not going away. The response needs to be stronger and better.

It is stated in the programme for Government that the Government will:

Implement a Conservation Plan for the Curragh, establishing a management plan to ensure its preservation, with careful consideration of which agency is best suited to manage this historic landscape.

To the best of my knowledge, that recommendation has not been implemented yet. Informal conversations suggest the National Parks and Wildlife Service as being best suited and I certainly think it would be a really good fit. This important element of the programme for Government reflects a growing concern right across the country about environmental degradation and the need for structured oversight of the Curragh. As well as being a protected national heritage site, the Curragh is obviously a military training ground. The conservation management plan was approved by Micheál Martin in late 2024. It is awaiting full implementation. We need to see that. We need to have decisions made on agency oversight. The main question I put to the Minister of State today is about this agency oversight and the funding and legislation that need to be put in place. We need to have a timely timeframe for this.

I thank Senator O'Loughlin for raising this really important matter and for her continued interest in the transformation of our Defence Forces. I am responding on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, who unfortunately cannot be here due to prior commitments. On his behalf, I welcome the opportunity to respond and I thank the Senator for bringing this matter to the forefront today.

The Tánaiste is deeply committed to the transformation of our Defence Forces into a modern, fit-for-purpose organisation to defend the State and meet the challenges of today and the future. The Commission on the Defence Forces was established on foot of a commitment within the then programme for Government and its report was published on 9 February 2022. There were 130 recommendations in total, comprising of 69 main recommendations and 61 further sub-recommendations. The commission recommended significant change to the Defence Forces and to the defence provision in Ireland. It covered high-level Defence Forces structures, defence capability, organisation, culture and human resources, the Reserve Defence Force and, most importantly, funding. Given the significant recommendations contained within the report, detailed consideration of these recommendations was undertaken, with a high-level action plan and a memo for Government brought and approved on 12 July 2022. This involved the approval of a move to level of ambition 2 by 2028, as set out in the capability framework devised by the Commission on the Defence Forces. This will result in the defence budget rising from €1.1 billion to €1.7 billion as per capital allocation under the national development plan, the largest increase in defence funding in the history of the State. This will allow for the required substantial transformation and investment in the recruitment and equipment that were identified by the commission.

The development of a detailed implementation plan was a key early action and key output from the opening phase of the transformation programme.

The detailed implementation plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published on 21 November 2023. This plan set out our ambitious programme of work to move from level of ambition 2, as well the significant and fundamental change for the Defence Forces that will be delivered under the following themes: strategic HR and cultural change; new command and control and joint structures to be established; services to be reformed and restructured; Reserve Defence Force to revitalised; and joint capability development to be implemented.

Much work has been achieved since the commission's report was published, with the recommendations implemented to date having a significant impact on members of the Defence Forces. This includes changes made to the existing Naval Service allowance as a means of simplifying current structures by consolidating the daily allowance and the seagoing commitment scheme into one enhanced allowance. In addition to this, the extension of private secondary healthcare to enlisted ranks was implemented in September 2023.

On recruitment, a number of initiatives have been progressed to counter staffing challenges to the Defence Forces. The Government agreed an increase in the minimum retirement age for permanent Defence Force personnel, to 62. This facilitated an increase in the maximum recruitment age, to 39, for those roles.

Senator O'Loughlin referenced agency oversight. She also mentioned funding and the legislative programme that is required. I will certainly take these matters back to the Tánaiste, in order that she can get a detailed response to the questions she has raised.

I acknowledge the work that has been done on recruitment and retention. I am disappointed that there is not anything in the response the Minister of State received from the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence's office in relation to the Curragh Plains. This is absolutely a key part here. We are halfway through the period from 2022 to 2028 to which the Minister of State referred and only one third of the recommendations have been implemented. Further to that, the programme for Government agreed in 2025 went further, particularly in respect of the protection of the Curragh Plains. The Minister of State has received no response in relation it. I take on board that he said he will bring that back to the Tánaiste's office. I would appreciate an update. He mentioned that we should expect an update in the next few weeks regarding the 130 recommendations. It is important we get that update. I hope it is timely. I look forward to tabling another Commencement matter to try to get further information on that.

I again thank the Senator for raising these important matters. The Commencement matter submitted by the Senator did not reference anything regarding the conservation or preservation plan for the Curragh Camp. However, I will raise that with officials to try to get a detailed briefing note to the Senator. I know how important it is to her. The Tánaiste assured me that he will provide an updated implementation plan. It will be published imminently. I will seek to ensure that the House is kept informed.

In regard to the importance of ensuring that areas under national conversation are protected, I listened to Senator very attentively. We have key agencies, such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which does tremendous work. That needs to be replicated in all areas of our country, not just in our national parks. The Curragh Camp is very much to the fore in that regard. I thank the Senator for raising the matter. We will get a response back for her.

I thank the Minister of State very much. We appreciate his time. I know it is busy. There is a vote being called in the Dáil. I thank him for taking a number of the Commencement matters.

The Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, is very welcome. He is no stranger to this House. I thank him for coming here because this Commencement matter is particularly important to his portfolio and area of expertise. This Commencement matter is in the name of Senator Seán Kyne and it relates to the recategorisation of Galway City Council from a tier 5 to a tier 4 local authority.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Cummins. The Minister of State is welcome. First, I thank the Cathaoirleach’s office for choosing this Commencement matter. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, for coming in. It is good to see the Minister of State with responsibility for the topic present.

I am raising this Commencement matter regarding funding for Galway City Council. In doing so, I am conscious of the continuous efforts being made by my colleagues on Galway City Council, including Councillors Frank Fahy, Eddie Hoare, Clodagh Higgins and Shane Forde, three of whom are former mayors of the city. We have had meetings and regular briefings with the management team of Galway City Council and with this year’s mayor, Councillor Mike Cubbard, as well as with the previous mayor, Councillor Peter Keane, where we met the manager. We have a new CEO, Mr. Leonard Cleary, who has come in since the baseline funding was decided by the Government a number of years ago.

Galway city is short-changed by being ranked as a tier 5 authority for funding. By being ranked alongside the smaller rural counties with a low population, Galway city is denied the funding it requires and deserves as a regional capital. Galway city’s population stands at 90,000 in 2025. That is not the full picture, however. During the autumn, winter and spring, some 30,000 students attend its two universities and in summer, it welcomes some two million tourists. It could be argued that there is a daily population of approximately 130,000 when workers coming into the city from the outskirts are taken into account as well.

Galway is a regional capital. It provides all the services of a regional capital to its hinterland of more than half a million citizens. Its four hospitals cater for thousands of patients weekly and its colleges educate each successive generation, yet it is funded as if it is the smallest of local authorities. Galway is a world hub for the medical device industry, with thousands of jobs and cutting-edge innovation. It is a tech hub with amazing new start-ups and spin-outs from our universities, but it is funded with no recognition of the achievements and needs this involves.

There is a huge need for investment in Galway city. We need transport infrastructure of all types to relieve the traffic gridlock experienced daily. We need public and private housing and the services that surround those provisions. We need all the other services involved in building sustainable communities, such as playgrounds, community centres, sports facilities, walking and cycling routes and everything that is needed to create a sustainable living city, yet we are funded at the lowest level.

Teastaíonn tuilleadh maoinithe do Chomhairle Cathrach na Gaillimhe. Tá an struchtúr atá leagtha amach ag an Roinn tithíochta agus rialtais áitiúil, ina bhfuil an comhairle cathrach i sraith 5, mífhéaráilte. Iarraim ar an Roinn Comhairle Cathrach na Gaillimhe a athrú go sraith 4. Tá an comhairle cathrach sa ghrúpa céanna le comhairlí beaga faoin tuath. Níl sé seo ceart do phríomhchathair an iarthair a bhfuil daonra de 90,000 aici, chomh maith le 30,000 mac léinn sa bhreis ag freastal ar an dhá ollscoil gach lá. Freisin, tá ceithre ospidéal sa chathair a fhreastalaíonn ar an gcathair, contae agus réigiún. Mar sin, tá a lán daoine ag úsáid seirbhísí sa chathair chuile lá.

Galway is the regional capital and it is not being funded as such. Its services cater not only for the environs of a relatively small, designated city but also for the greater region, both in the county and throughout Connacht. That needs to be reflected in the baseline funding it receives. Changes were made and agreed to a number of years ago and I appreciate that. That decision predates the present CEO, however, who has indicated that, on a population basis in particular, it reflects just the population of the city rather than the population it caters for on a daily basis, which includes some of the county and the region. That is the main issue that needs to be taken into account. I am not trying to take from any other local authority. Rather, I seek to ensure Galway city gets what it deserves in the context of what it does for the area and region.

Before I call the Minister of State to respond, I welcome the three guests of the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Butler, who are present. I apologise for cutting across the Minister of State.

That is no problem. I certainly welcome our guests, especially if they are from Waterford as guests of the Minister of State.

That is why I thought I would give you the heads up.

They are more than welcome to the Chamber. I thank Senator Kyne for outlining the position as he sees it regarding funding for Galway City Council.

I know the Senator is a strong advocate for his area and that he will continue to fight for increased funding. It is important for me to clarify at the outset that the characterisation of Galway City Council as a tier 5 local authority refers specifically to the size of the local authority. It does not actually reflect the funding mechanism for the local authority. Dublin City Council, for example, is categorised as a tier 1 local authority because of the scale of the authority itself. It is not in any way linked to the funding the authority may receive. In other words, a simple reclassification of Galway City Council from a tier 5 to tier 4 local authority would not have any effect on the funding of the authority itself, which is actually determined by a range of other factors. It would be the incorrect classification based on its size.

The funding system for local authorities is a complex one. Authorities derive their income from a variety of sources including commercial rates, charges for goods and services, local property tax, as well as funding from Government Departments and other bodies. Central Government funding of local authorities similarly presents a complex picture, with transfers, both current and capital, coming from a wide range of Departments and offices for a variety of purposes. In 2023, funding from central government to local authorities totalled around €6.7 billion. Across all schemes and funding sources, my Department provided €69.6 million in 2022 to Galway City Council, €79.8 million in 2023, and €93.3 million in 2024.

As previously stated, there is no tiered funding system in place and the criteria for the distribution of this funding varies by scheme, depending on the scheme in question. Central government funding has traditionally provided non-programme funding to local authorities in the form of an annual contribution towards meeting the costs of providing a reasonable level of service in their area. Up until 2014, this was in the form of a general purpose grant, and from 2015 onwards, it was replaced by the local property tax, LPT, which were linked in the most part to the general purpose grant. It is important to note that while the LPT is an important source of own-use funding it was just 6% of the overall current income of the sector in 2023. Annual funding allocations from the LPT are decided in accordance with Government-approved distribution policies and are based on estimates of the yield and the baselines in individual local authority areas. Under the LPT allocation model, every local authority has a minimum level of funding available to it known as the baseline. A review of these baselines was completed by a working group in 2023, and it identified that the baseline funding of some authorities needed adjustment according to the criteria of population, area, local income, deprivation and achievement of national policy priorities. The Government agreed that these adjustments be applied and, furthermore, that every local authority would receive a minimum increase of at least €1.5 million, which Galway City Council benefited from. There will be a review every five years in this respect. I will go into a few more figures in my follow-up response.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply but the baseline figures are, presumably, determined by population.

It is one factor.

It is one factor but it is an important factor and is the basis of the argument here, which is that it does not cater for the role of Galway city as a regional capital. It relates only to the population living in the city and not the population that it serves, many of whom are from the county, and the many who come for healthcare from Mayo or Donegal who also use the roads and the services. That is the whole point. I do not think it relates to the actual role that Galway city has as a regional capital. This is why I believe the model is flawed. I know from experience in Galway County Council as well that the Minister of State's Department was unable to actually explain how the baselines were derived or what the model was that made it up. How does the Minister of State rely on figures without having the backup data for how those figures for funding were arrived at, which is the case going back over 20 years?

The review of the baselines looked at a number of factors and population was just one of them. Other factors included local income, deprivation and achieving national policy priorities.

It is important to say that Galway City Council has benefited and will benefit into next year. It will receive an additional €1 million from an increase in the LPT baseline, while €1.1 million of the surplus the local authority generates will be retained by it. The authority will increase its variation as well, as it did for 2025. That enables it to have €1.6 million over and above its base. There is significant benefit derived from the changes this year and into 2026.

I take the Senator's points on board but the tiering designation piece has no impact whatsoever on the baselines. It is not a factor for consideration. I take on board the other points the Senator raised on the additional catchment that is captured, but obviously that is captured in Galway County Council's allocation as well in terms of LPT.

I thank the Minister of State for that comprehensive response and I thank Senator Kyne for raising the issue.