I have received notice from the following Senators that they propose to raise the following matters:

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins - the need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on Ireland’s position on the amendment of protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the EU and its member states and Morocco, arising from the Court of Justice of the European Union rulings on Western Sahara.

Senator Sarah O'Reilly - the need for the Minister for Education and Youth to make a statement on the additional supports requested by the survivors of industrial and reformatory schools who are currently on hunger strike outside Leinster House.

Senator Noel O'Donovan - the need for the Minister for Transport to provide an update on the allocation of funding to upgrade the N71 in west Cork.

Senator Alison Comyn - the need for the Minister for Health to make a statement on the lack of suitable dental chairs and beds to treat people with disabilities.

Senator Cathal Byrne - the need for the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to make a statement on plans to establish a second Garda training college.

Senator Nessa Cosgrove - the need for the Minister Housing, Local Government and Heritage to make a statement on the enhanced defective concrete blocks grant scheme.

Senator Joe Conway - the need for the Minister for Education and Youth to make a statement on the application for an extension for Scoil Gharbháin, Abbeyside, Dungarvan, County Waterford.

Senator Victor Boyhan - the need for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to make a statement on the closure of mink farms in Ireland and the status of the compensation scheme agreed with the affected operators.

Senator Garret Ahearn - the need for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to make a statement on the recent €50 million funding announcement for the tillage sector.

Senator Robbie Gallagher - the need for the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality to provide an update on the timeline for the completion of the replacement facility at Clogher House, Rathcorrick, County Cavan.

The matters raised by the Senators are suitable for discussion and I have selected Senators Alice-Mary Higgins, Sarah O'Reilly, Noel O'Donovan and Alison Comyn and they will be taken now. The other Senators may give notice on another day of the matters that they wish to raise.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, to the House. This is an unusual commencement matter in that the Senator has submitted it previously. I have reviewed the transcript of the engagement between the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, and Senator Higgins and it seemed that all of the information that was available to the Department was not conveyed in the response, which is why I have asked that it be resubmitted by Senator Higgins.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in to deal with this very important question. I put it originally on the day before the decision was to be made. Now I am merely asking what decision has been made and for further details in relation to it. In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, annulled the application of the EU-Morocco trade deal in relation to Western Sahara because the Sahrawi people had not given their consent. The court gave the EU a one-year deadline to try to bring its actions in line with international law. It ruled that the consent of the Sahrawi people had to be sought, explicitly or implicitly, and that there would need to be tangible benefits for the Sahrawis which did not give rise to obligations. During this one-year period the European Commission did not consult with the Polisario Front which, according to the CJEU, is the privileged interlocutor and the only recognised legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people.

The text of the European Commission's proposal reveals an approach which, rather than taking a step back in terms of international law, threatens to embed further the situation whereby there has been illegal occupation and exploitation of the resources of Western Sahara, without a mandate, by Morocco. Again, the current proposal from the Commission will be preferential tariffs for goods from Western Sahara, albeit with a labelling requirement, and investment in Western Sahara, all of which will benefit Moroccan settlers and Moroccan companies that have been operating outside the law in the extraction of resources, value and profits. This is literally akin to saying that we will intensify and give even greater benefits to settlers in the West Bank. This is the analogy, effectively, and it is true in terms of settlers in the West Bank. The proposal is that settlers will be able to profit and that is how we will engage with the issues.

Ireland has been clear on the issue of occupied territories. You do not embed or intensify occupation or create a scenario where the situation on the ground becomes impossible for the people of that place to reverse or act upon, but yet this is the proposal that seems to have been agreed. Right now, the proposal is in provisional application even though the European Parliament had not been informed on it, which was an obligation. The dates do not add up. The Commission got the mandate to negotiate on 10 September and suddenly the negotiations were over on 18 September. That is an eight-day negotiation, which seems extraordinary. Was the Commission negotiating without mandate previous to that time? What was the basis there?

We are told not to worry, that the Sahrawi people are going to get something. They are going to get humanitarian aid, which should never be linked to a trade deal. They are getting €9 million in humanitarian aid and, meanwhile, the bilateral trade between the EU and Morocco is worth €60 billion annually. That is the context in which I pose a number of very specific questions.

What position did Ireland take at the meeting? How did the Irish designated officials vote on the proposal? Did they ask the Commission whether negotiations had been taking place prior to a mandate being given by the Council? Did they seek to influence that mandate? Do they accept that the idea of a unilateral definition by the EU on investment without differentiation annexed to the agreement could incentivise occupation? Did they press for an explicit rather than implicit approach to consent? This was the opportunity to leverage the referendum we have been told is long awaited and that Ireland and the EU supports. Surely this was an opportunity to press Morocco to support a referendum and allow explicit consent from the Sahrawi people. Does the Minister of State accept that humanitarian aid is not a benefit under international law and cannot be withheld in that same way and the giving of it cannot be seen as a benefit within trade relations for a people?

These are key questions. I would also appreciate if the Minister of State could comment on the timeline. There seems to be confusion, even within the Irish Government, in relation to the time. There is great concern in the European Parliament about the timeline now, where it is not being consulted in advance of provisional application.

I am very grateful to Senator Higgins for raising this Commencement matter. I genuinely welcome the opportunity to clarify the concerns raised by the Senator about information provided to the House in the debate on Commencement matters on 3 September. At that time, the Senator asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to update the House on Ireland's position regarding the amendment of an agreement between the EU and Morocco. I wish to underline that the process to conclude the Council's 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 is nearing its conclusion. I also wish to clarify that the references to the negotiation process in the information provided to the House on 3 December referred to both the negotiations between the European Commission and Morocco and to the consideration by member states of that agreement.

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 conclusions of the 2018 agreement, in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. This decision required a negotiation of a new agreement between the EU and Morocco. The court set a deadline of 4 October 2025, in that it maintained the effects of the existing Council decision until that date.

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. On 10 September 2025, the Council adopted, via a written procedure, a decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of the agreement with the results of the negotiation between the European Commission and Morocco reflected in several documents shared with member states on 22 September via the Customs Union group. The Commission presented the proposal at the Mashreq-Maghreb working party on 25 September. Having been initiated by COREPER I on 1 October, member states were asked to finally vote, via written procedure, on the adoption of the decision on 2 October.

The EU and Morocco signed the amended EU-Morocco agreement on 3 October and its provisional application began. The formal process is currently nearing its conclusion. At the time of the Commencement matter on this subject on 30 September, member state negotiations on the replacement agreement had not yet been fully concluded in Brussels. Discussions were still ongoing at official level as regards the decision. As Ireland had not yet taken a final decision on our position on the proposal, and as the vote via written procedure had not yet taken place, it was indicated to the House that negotiations on the replacement agreement had not yet fully concluded in Brussels. This was entirely accurate at that time. I can now confirm that Ireland voted in favour of the Council decision via written procedure on 2 October, indicating that Ireland would not stand in the way of EU consensus and in order to ensure that the EU complied with its legal obligations. However, Ireland also registered procedural and substantive concerns about the Commission's handling of this process. Ireland made clear that we expect to receive regular updates from the Commission on key issues as the agreement is implemented. Ireland also reiterated our view that the compatibility of the agreement with the fundamental principle in international law of the right of people to self-determination should be paramount in the implementation of this agreement. Needless to say, as the Senator would expect from me, I maintain that humanitarian aid should never be viewed as a benefit to any agreement.

The issue is that what remained was the vote. The content had been determined at the time I was speaking, so I was asking specifically what position Ireland would be taking. I am disappointed to hear that Ireland did not take a stronger position. This goes absolutely against the position that the Attorney General and the International Court of Justice have taken on the occupied territories in the West Bank. The view is that occupation should not be entrenched.

I would like concerns in relation to that to be addressed. Was the issue of explicit consent not being sought versus implicit raised? What were the substantive and procedural concerns raised by Ireland? These are significant matters and of concern to me, all members of the foreign affairs and trade committee and all of those concerned about international law being diluted.

It is fair to say that the handling of this matter fell below the standard we would expect across these Houses and within the Government. The late submission of documents by the European Commission so close to the 4 October deadline left member states in a difficult position. I wish to reiterate to the Senator that Ireland's long-standing position on Western Sahara is one of full support for the UN-led process to achieve a political solution to this long-standing dispute and full support of the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination. We endeavoured at all times to provide accurate information to this House on a complex legal and diplomatic process, including in the Commencement matter. I appreciate that some of detail provided today serves to clarify matters for the House. However, I would welcome the opportunity to continue engagement, perhaps in writing, with the Senator because some of the technical detailed questions need to be replied to on paper so that both of us have them to hand accurately. I look forward as ever to continuing that discussion with the Senator.

The issue that the Senator raised at the time was in relation to the conclusion of the negotiations. It was coming up the following day for a decision by Ireland and other member states. The answer led us to believe that negotiations were still ongoing. The process might have been ongoing, but it appeared that the negotiations had all but concluded. The concern about the people of Western Sahara and their-----

They did not get negotiated with at all.

That was an issue that was also raised. Phraseology and language are important. The decision was the following day, but it was not even alluded to in the answer. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I thank the Senator for raising that issue.

The Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, is most welcome.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in to speak on this important issue. I am deeply concerned about what has been going on for three weeks outside of the gates of Leinster House. As we speak here, there are four survivors of industrial and reformatory schools camping outside the gates on hunger strike, one man and three women who suffered abuse in institutions run or sanctioned by the State and have lived for decades carrying the effects of that abuse. They are making a stand. I am worried for their welfare. One of the women has developed a chest infection and is on antibiotics. Despite this, they are still committed to their cause and show no signs of giving up. There has been little movement from the Government on this. I am aware that these vulnerable people are essentially being left out in the cold, but they are not for giving up.

Legislation is not set in stone, but the Government is using that assertion in some of its letters to the victims. The Government amends and introduces new legislation all the time. This is not a viable argument against helping people who were failed so badly in the past. These survivors are among the most vulnerable in our society. Their asks are small, but the signal it would send is significant - that the State takes its responsibilities seriously even decades later. They are asking for limited support, namely, a contributory pension and Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, card. These are not extravagant demands. They are practical measures that would give survivors some dignity, security and recognition that the State acknowledges its own failures. Does the Government have any plans to address these concerns? What will it do to bring an end to this hunger strike?

I thank Senator O'Reilly for raising this very important and sensitive matter. I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth, Deputy McEntee, who sends her apologies because she cannot be here.

I assure the Senator that the Government is very conscious of the enormous trauma experienced by all survivors of abuse. She is right that these are vulnerable people. With regard to the group currently engaged in a protest outside Leinster House, the primary concern of the Minister and the Government has been, and at all times is, that they safeguard their physical and mental health by reconsidering their action. These four people should be treated with respect and dignity.

Both the Minister and the Taoiseach have met separately with the group. Officials from the Department of Education and Youth have also been in touch with the group on a number of occasions. The special advocate for survivors, Ms Patricia Carey, has been in ongoing contact. Officials from the Department met with the group in August to listen to their concerns. At all times, they have been respectfully urged to safeguard their health and well-being. It is regrettable that they have chosen to continue their protests. The HSE has arranged for regular welfare and medical checks to be carried out and the Department of Education and Youth has offered to arrange accommodation for the group during the recent severe weather warning.

The Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Act 2025 was passed by the Oireachtas in July. The Act was subject to extensive debate, particularly in this House. It gives effect to the Government's decision of June 2023 to provide certain ongoing supports to survivors of abuse in residential institutions such as industrial schools and reformatories, including health, education and advocacy supports. This marks a new phase in the State's response to the issue.

The package of health supports and services provided for in the Act will ensure survivors resident in the State have access to a range of health supports through the HSE, including GP services, home nursing and home helps, chiropody and podiatry, and physiotherapy. This approach is consistent with that taken in respect of survivors and former residents of the Magdalen laundries and mother and baby institutions. The entitlement will be for life and will not be subject to means tests or periodic reviews. Survivors living abroad will be able to avail of a payment of €3,000, in lieu of this package of supports, to support their health needs. This is the same approach taken in respect of the mother and baby institutions.

The Act also provides for the establishment of a scheme involving the payment of cash grants ranging from €500 to €2,000 to survivors who are engaging in further and higher education. This scheme will ensure survivors are not required to pay the student contribution charge where this would otherwise apply.

The focus is now on implementing the legislation and the Government is not in a position to revisit it. I can confirm that officials in the Department are in the process of reviewing the recommendations of the report of the consultative forum again and I understand that, in relation to the recommendations on memorialisation and records, there is scope for further engagement.

It is regrettable that the group has chosen to take this action. I respectfully urge them to reconsider their current action in the interest of their health and to engage with officials to discuss the various matters I have referred to.

This response is not good enough. While I understand the legal and financial limits, I would argue the State still has the ability to act to support these people. Their requests are small and practical. A contributory pension and a HAA card do not require reopening redress schemes. There are existing supports that could be made available to people who have clearly been failed by the State. It is not generous to give a contributory pension to people who are victims of forced labour; it is the bare minimum.

To say the scheme is closed and to do nothing risks repeating the same failure. These people endured abuse, often without family support, and now face old age without proper assistance. There are social protection and welfare mechanisms that could be used to help them. For example, in 2021 and 2022, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, transferred unused funds that had been allocated to schemes for Traveller and Roma communities and Magdalen laundry redress. He allocated €1.1 million to various LGBTQ+ initiatives. Are there potentially any unspent funds that could be allocated to ensure these survivors receive HAA cards and contributory pensions? I ask the Minister and Government to look at what they can do to address this situation.

It is a very sensitive and difficult matter, as I outlined in my reply at the beginning. In June 2023, the Government approved a provision of a package of ongoing supports to survivors in the areas of health, education and advocacy, which built upon the already significant State response to the issue. It is considered that the package is a balanced and proportional approach which addresses a number of key issues raised by survivors. It is also broadly consistent with the approach taken in respect of other groups, in particular survivors and former residents of the Magdalen laundries and the mother and baby institutions. However, it is acknowledged that the package of supports does not go as far as some survivors would like.

With regard to health supports, as I have already said, the package of supports and services to be provided to survivors is the exact same as was previously provided under the Magdalen laundry and mother and baby institutions schemes. While there have been calls for the provision of a Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, card, it is important to note that this was introduced specifically to meet the significant health needs of a particular group of individuals who contracted a serious and life-threatening condition, that is, people who contracted hepatitis C through the administration within the State of contaminated blood and blood products.

I will bring back all the concerns the Senator raised. With regard to the ongoing protest, it is important that the group reconsiders its current actions in the interest of people’s health and well-being. I ask it to do so and continue to engage regarding the issues it has raised. As I have outlined, there has been engagement and I hope that continues. I will bring back the Senator’s concerns.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, for staying with us. For more than 40 years, the people of west Cork have listened to politicians talk about upgrading the N71, but very little has changed in those 40 years. The N71 remains a national route in name only. In reality, it is a narrow, twisting and crumbling stretch of road that has seen little investment since the 1970s. Those of us who drive on it daily know its dangers all too well, including blind bends, no safe passing lanes and surfaces that would shame any other national route in the country. It is impacting our towns and villages. Innishannon, Bandon, Clonakilty and Bantry are all choked with congestion, which has an immense toll on daily life.

This is not just about a matter of convenience; it is a matter of safety, fairness and regional equality. The N71 is west Cork’s lifeline. It carries our families, farmers, students and workers and our many visitors. It brings food from our fields and fish from our harbours to market. It sustains our tourism economy. For years, we have heard talk about feasibility studies, potential funding and future phases, but talk does not fill potholes and hints of funding do not build bypasses. While the N22 to Kerry has been transformed and the N20 to Limerick is being advanced towards motorway standard, our N71 still carries the same pinch points, bottlenecks and risks that existed two generations ago. That is not acceptable in 2025.

Since I was elected as a councillor and subsequently privileged to be appointed to Seanad Éireann, I have and will continue to raise the matter of the N71. It is one of my clear political priorities. Recently, we have heard talks of so-called hints of funding for the N71. The people of west Cork deserve better. We deserve more than hints. We want clear action and a plan. Our infrastructure in west Cork has been neglected for years. We see plenty in terms of social media delivery but we have yet to see tangible delivery where it matters on the ground. We need certainty and a clear multiyear funding commitment to bring this vital road up to modern standards. That means proper bypasses of our key towns; proper passing lanes; the realignment of dangerous bends and junctions; new surfaces, drainage and signage; and safe walking and cycling links near our schools and villages. These are not luxuries; they are the basic expectations for any national route in this country.

We the people of west Cork are not asking for a motorway. We are common sense, practical people. We are asking for equality. Over recent decades, other parts of the country have received transformative investment, and rightly so. West Cork now deserves similar treatment. Every visitor who drives onto the N71 from the Bandon road roundabout can see exactly where investment stops. That is not just bad optics; it is bad economics. It sends a clear message that west Cork has been left behind. It is time to change that. I am calling today for a co-ordinated corridor plan for the entire N71, from Innishannon through Bandon, Clonakilty, Skibbereen and Bantry and on to Glengarriff. We cannot continue a piecemeal, town-by-town announcement that goes nowhere. We need one joined-up vision backed by funding and timelines to make the N71 reliable for all who depend on it.

I put it to the Minister of State, and I say this with respect but also with resolve, that west Cork has waited long enough and the N71 has waited long enough. Our region has carried its share of national growth and deserves its share of national investment. As a proud west Cork native and a Fine Gael Senator working for west Cork, I will continue to raise this issue in the Seanad and beyond. I will work constructively with the Minister of State, his Department and colleagues across all parties but I will also hold every one of us to account, myself included, for delivery that has been missing for far too long. After 40 years of neglect, it is time to deliver. West Cork deserves a safe, modern and fair N71, one that reflects the value of the people and the region it serves.

I thank the Senator for raising the matter of the N71. The Senator is right that it is very different from when it was first originated and built. The Senator has outlined very much the key issues of safety and congestion. The traffic volume has made many of those vibrant towns very congested. I concur completely with the Senator that the N71 from the Bandon Road roundabout back to Bantry is deserving of a response from the Government and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. The Senator is right that the wait has been long enough. I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister for Transport, Deputy O'Brien, who has responsibility for the overall policy and, with the Department of Transport, for Exchequer funding in relation to our national roads programme.

As the Member will be aware, once funding arrangements are put in place with TII under the Roads Acts 1993-2015 and the national development plan, NDP, the planning, design, improvement and upgrading of individual national roads is a matter for TII conjunction with the local authority, which in this case is Cork County Council. TII ultimately delivers the national roads programme in line with Project Ireland 2040, the national planning framework and the NDP. A priority in the NDP, in line with the Department's typical investment hierarchy, is to maintain the quality and safety of the existing road network. The NDP foresees an Exchequer allocation of some €2.9 billion for the protection and renewal of existing national roads over a ten-year period, excluding those in public-private partnerships, allocated evenly across the decade. Another €5.1 billion has been earmarked for new national road projects over the lifetime of the national development plan. Approximately €502 million in Exchequer capital funds were provided for national roads through TII to local authorities this year. This is used for the construction of major new projects as well as the protection and renewal of the existing road network.

It is important to point out that a number of road projects have been delivered in the Cork area around the M28 and the N22, and also at the Dunkettle interchange. The Senator raised the N71 specifically, which is an important gateway for west Cork, as the Senator has rightly said. Funding has been given in terms of some of the improvements but again the variety of improvement schemes are not what they should be, as the Senator said. I completely concur with the Senator having used the road extensively myself and having been down there with the Senator over the summer months.

The Senator will be aware that an extension to the existing Bandon relief road is intended to address a number of issues with the current road. Currently this road ties back into the existing road network via a very steep downhill gradient. Traffic also needs to negotiate a number of roundabouts and priority junctions with the built-up area of Bandon. The proposed relief road extension will involve bridging the R603 to remove the steep gradient and the construction of approximately 2.5 km of a new single carriageway line tying back to the existing N71 just to the west of the town. Cork County Council held a competition in 2023 to appoint technical advisers to complete phase two - options selection, and phase three - design and environmental evaluation. As part of the national roads allocation for this year, €450,000 has been allocated, which will facilitate the advancement of the planning and design stage of the scheme. In relation to the proposed bypass at Bantry, I can confirm that as part of this year's national roads allocation €100,000 was allocated to progress the scheme to the initial planning phase. I understand from my discussions with TII and Cork County Council that we are not yet in a position to prioritise the proposed bypass of Innishannon and Clonakilty due to the many competing demands for these resources, which have been required to fund other schemes.

I do take the Senator's point about the co-ordinated council plan. It is one that is needed. Those of us who use the road understand the importance of what the Senator has raised. The Senator is articulating very eloquently and very passionately the views of many. I thank the Senator for his ongoing advocacy. I look forward, with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, to ensuring that Innishannon, Bandon, Clonakilty and Bantry, and the people of west Cork, receive their share of funding. The Senator is right that it is gridlock now going through Innishannon at any hour of the day or night and it is nearly a long-term hazard. The Senator has articulated quite well that Bandon is choked too. I look forward to working with the Senator to ensure we can prioritise and progress the N71 upgrade. I look forward to hearing any further suggestions the Senator has on the matter.

I thank the Minister of State for his comments. I acknowledge the work he has committed to in engaging with me and listening to further suggestions, and the time he gave recently in west Cork looking at various stretches of road.

The majority of the response from the Department and TII refers to projects in other parts of the county. I asked clearly for a co-ordinated corridor plan for west Cork. The town of Clonakilty is not mentioned in the response and there is nothing planned for the village of Innishannon. According to the responses I have received, they are not included in the national development plan. The N71 is not included in the national development plan.

In the coming weeks and months we will go into more detail about what is included in the national development plan. I am asking the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, for the inclusion of the N71 in the national development plan and that a clear co-ordinated corridor plan be put in place once and for all. Between Cork County Council, TII and the Department of Transport, the N71 is getting lost. That cannot continue to be the case. I thank the Minister of State for being here.

I accept the Senator's disappointment. The N71 is a very important gateway to west Cork. I live at the beginning of it and have travelled it. There is huge merit in what the Senator is suggesting about a co-ordinated corridor. I will not read out the rest of the response to the Senator because it will probably aggravate him further and I do not want to do that. We all share, whether it is the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, or me, the need for continued road investment and allocation of funding for projects such as the N71. I give a commitment to the Senator that I will co-ordinate a meeting between him and officials in the Department. It is something we have to look at in terms of the gateway to west Cork, which is a tourism mecca for our county and region. It is also an important one in terms of the ongoing investment in Cork. It is, as the Senator said, to eliminate that choked passageway through Innishannon, Clonakilty, Bantry and Bandon. I will work with the Senator to ensure he gets a reply back and a meeting with officials. It is an important issue. I say this as a Cork person who understands the frustration of people in west Cork. If you stand at the side of the road in Innishannon, it is nearly a procession of traffic the whole time, as the Cathaoirleach knows. I take the Senator's frustration and annoyance at the response. I will work with him to ensure we progress the plan. I thank him again for raising the matter.

I thank the Minister of State for his time.

I want to raise a matter of real concern which may never cross most people's radars: the serious lack of access to dental care and surgery for people with disabilities, wheelchair users and those with significant challenges. The issue is not theoretical. In recent weeks I spoke to a constituent of mine who uses a wheelchair and has been waiting over 18 months for essential dental surgery. That is 18 months of pain, infection and distress, and all because there is nowhere in her region equipped to safely treat her. She is not the exception; she is one of many. Much of the information I am sharing today comes directly from the Irish Wheelchair Association, which has always been clear and consistent in highlighting the barriers people with disabilities face in accessing even the most basic dental care.

Right now, Ireland is reported to have only two specialist dental beds for public use that can allow dentists to carry out procedures on someone who cannot be treated in a standard dental chair. Two beds, and that is for the 20% of people living with some form disability.

There are hundreds of people right across the country waiting for treatment for months or possibly years. Many are living on soft or pureed foods. Some are taking repeated courses of antibiotics or relying on daily painkillers just to function. We are not talking about cosmetic procedures here. They are urgent, medically necessary treatments for infection, decay and severe pain - the same conditions that, for the rest of us, will trigger emergency care. This is not due to a lack of dedication from our dental professionals. Our dentists and nurses throughout Ireland are doing exceptional work under impossible constraints. The problem is capacity. Just to be a wheelchair-friendly surgery is not enough. We do not have the facilities, the specialist equipment or the trained staff to meet even the basic oral health needs of people who cannot physically access a standard dental chair. It is not acceptable that in 2025, in order to receive care under anaesthetic, a person with a disability must travel to Dublin and hope to get access to one of only two available dental beds. It is not acceptable that families are told again and again to keep waiting while their loved one lives on in pain. It is not acceptable that disability continues to mean de-prioritisation within our health system.

I am hoping for some urgent action. I have a bit of a wish list here that may help. It asks for a national review of special care dentistry capacity, including access to theatres and anaesthetic support, immediate funding to expand dental surgery facilities beyond Dublin into every region and the installation of a specialised dental chair for routine and ongoing care in every primary care centre in the country so that people with disabilities can access preventative and restorative dental treatment locally without needing hospital referral. It also asks for a long-term workforce plan to train and recruit more clinicians in special dental care.

This is not a matter of luxury. We are not talking about people getting cosmetic dentistry. It is one of dignity, equality and health. Oral health is integral to overall health. We all take for granted that we can pop to our dentist and have a check-up, but it is not that easy for people with mobility issues. Right now, their access to that care depends on luck, geography and the ability to fight their way through a system that, to be honest, was never designed for them in the first place. Two specialist beds for an entire country is not a health system. It is an oversight that I feel is bordering on neglect. I ask that this issue be treated as a matter of national priority. I ask the Minister of State to please bring forward a plan, one that ensures every person with a disability in every part of Ireland has access to the dental care they deserve, provided locally, safely and, of course, with the utmost dignity and respect.

Before I call the Minister of State, I welcome Senator McCarthy's visitors from Ukraine. Pryvet. I hope you have a good time in the Oireachtas.

I also welcome Rodion and his family. We are delighted to have them here.

I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to address the issue of accessibility and dental services for people with disabilities. The national oral health policy has two key goals, namely, to provide the supports to enable every individual to achieve their personal best oral health and to reduce oral health inequalities across the population by enabling vulnerable patients to access oral healthcare and improve their oral health.

The Government has invested over €230 million annually in the provision of oral health, including an additional €15 million in reoccurring funding since 2019-20, to support progress on the national oral health policy. The dental treatment service scheme provides a range of care, free of charge, to medical card holders aged 16 and over. More complex care, as well as a broader range of treatments for patients with additional needs and high-risk patients, are available, subject to the approval of the local HSE principal dental surgeon.

Last year, the HSE oral healthcare service provided dental care to over 150,000 adults and children. This includes almost 50,000 emergency appointments to eligible patients, either on a same-day or next-day basis. It also includes those with additional needs who cannot receive care in a general dental practice. The HSE provides these patients with an oral health examination and, where necessary, their treatment is provided using additional supports.

The HSE has invested in additional equipment, including wheelchair tilts, which enhance the accessibility of dental surgeries for wheelchair users who cannot self-transfer to a dental chair.

There are currently 12 wheelchair tilts in place nationally, with a further five being considered as part of dental location developments. There is a further range of patients who are wheelchair users who are unable to attend routine dental treatment due to comorbidities. These patients can be supported to access treatment under sedation or general anaesthesia.

Through the implementation of the national oral health policy, Smile agus Sláinte, the Government has committed to reforming oral healthcare services for people with disabilities. I know this is a priority and I understand that there are challenges that we definitely need to address. The Senator mentioned the Irish Wheelchair Association. The work that it does around the country is exceptional.

Oral health services will be prevention-focused and will be tailored to each age group across the life course, from birth to old age. Patients with additional needs will be supported to mainstream to a local general dental practice of their choosing, while the HSE oral healthcare service will reorient to provide care for those who cannot receive the entirety of their care in a general dental practice. The HSE will also develop the necessary models of care, clinical guidelines and care pathways to support the provision of these services. In budget 2025, a further €2 million was invested. The overall amount will increase to €4 million in 2026, which includes a commitment to provide an additional 15 HSE staff to deliver oral healthcare services, on top of continued efforts to address current vacancies.

I thank the Minister of State for her detailed response. It is good to see that it is being noted and looked at, and that there is provision. From my point of view, I hear from people who are suffering and have been for the past couple of years. What can happen in an implementation plan is different from what is on the ground. The idea of it being prevention focused - on the root cause, if the Minister of State will pardon the pun - is the ideal scenario. That is not what is happening at the moment, which is that people are not being treated quickly enough. There is a misnomer that many dental surgeries are wheelchair accessible, but that does not mean that somebody can go and get treated there. I welcome the fact that there will be more investment next year and the following year. I would still like to see more of these beds being put into primary care centres, not just to allow a wheelchair to be tilted but also in order that people can be treated with dignity on a bed or in a hospital of their choosing. I thank the Minister of State for that.

I thank the Senator for raising this matter. I assure her once again that the Government is committed to supporting access to oral healthcare services for people with disabilities, which is evidenced by the significant investment in recent years. A package of measures was introduced in 2022 to expand the care available under the dental treatment services scheme, DTSS. Significantly, increased fees have been paid to contractors. These measures have improved access to care. Payments for contractor claims in 2024 showed 227,691 additional treatments were provided nationally under the DTSS, with more than 44,208 extra patients treated compared with 2022. In the long term, the national oral health policy sets out a complete transformation of oral healthcare services and the expansion of care available for both children and adults.

Under the new model of care being developed by the HSE, families will be able to access free, age-appropriate oral healthcare for their children at a dental practice of their choosing in their local community which holds a contract with the HSE. Children will be able to attend for care starting from birth and continuing regularly throughout their childhood. The HSE oral healthcare staff will have a key role in the new model. There will be an important new model set out under the national oral health policy, which will be oriented towards patients with additional needs who are less able to attend a general dental practice and who must be enabled to have greater access to oral healthcare.

I understand totally. It is important that if someone needs a service, particularly if they are in pain, the service is there. I will go back to the Minister, Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill. I will also be fully supporting this and, as I said, I will highlight concerns that are there but going forward, we will see change.

To reiterate, I really appreciate the Minister of State taking the time with regard to the national oral health policy. I will be keeping a close eye-----

Senator, we are out of time.

Gabhaim buíochas leat.

I thank the Minister of State and the Senator for their contributions.