Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Dillon. Cé go bhfuil stádas iomlán mar theanga oifigiúil is oibre ag an nGaeilge san Aontas Eorpach ó thús na bliana 2022 de bhun rialacháin, ta cinneadh déanta ag Parlaimint na hEorpa amháin gan foireann iomlán aistritheoirí Gaeilge a fhostú le plé leis an bhfocal scríofa agus gan post buan ar bith a chruthú d’ateangairí Gaeilge sa Pharlaimint chun plé leis an nGaeilge labhartha. Fágann sé sin nach bhfuil an deis ag Feisirí an Ghaeilge a úsáid in obair choistí na Parlaiminte, áit a ndéantar formhór obair na Parlaiminte. Is gá go n-éileoidh an Rialtas go gcruthóidh Parlaimint na hEorpa na poist bhuana a bhfuil gá leo. Is éard atá i gceist agam ná sé phost d’aistritheoirí, dhá phost do phrofléitheoirí Gaeilge agus trí phost d’ateangairí Gaeilge, agus iad a líonadh le daoine ar chonarthaí buana nó sealadacha ach na poist bhuana sin a bheith ann.

Dála an scéil, réitigh Rialtas Mhálta an maolú ar úsáid na Máltaise sa Pharlaimint níos luaithe i mbliana. Is gá do Rialtas na hÉireann gníomhú láithreach, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs Uachtaránacht na hÉireann ar an Aontas Eorpach agus ar Chomhairle na nAirí atá ag teacht chun cinn.

As the Minister of State knows, Irish has been a full official working language of the European Union since the beginning of 2022, pursuant to a regulation. The European Parliament alone has decided not to employ a full team of Irish language translators to deal with the written word or create any permanent position for Irish language interpreters in Parliament to deal with spoken Irish. This means that MEPs do not have the opportunity to use Irish in the work of the committees of the Parliament, where most of the Parliament’s work is done. In the context of our upcoming Presidency of the European Union and the Council, the Government must require the European Parliament to create the necessary permanent posts. There must be six Irish-language translator posts, two Irish-language proofreader posts and three Irish language interpreter posts, to be filled either on a permanent basis or by temporary contract staff as long as those permanent jobs are in place.

The Maltese Government resolved the derogation on the use of Maltese in Parliament earlier this year. Now is the time for the Irish Government to take an immediate step likewise. I will ask the Minister of State the following questions: cad iad na bearta sonracha atá curtha i bhfeidhm chun a chinntiú gur féidir le seirbhís ateangaireachta Pharlaimint na hEorpa ateangaireacht Ghaeilge a chur ar fáil le linn Uachtaránacht na hÉireann ar an gComhairle ón 1 Iúil 2026? Cé mhéad ateangaire foirne don Ghaeilge atá earcaithe ag Parlaimint na hEorpa faoi láthair? Cé mhéad post buan d'ateangairí a bheidh ag teastáil chun ligean d'Fheisirí a gceart chun Gaeilge a labhairt a fheidhmiú i gcruinnithe coiste agus toscaireachta faoi riail 174 de na rialacha nós imeachta? Cé mhéad post buan breise d'aistritheoirí agus do phrofléithteoirí sa rannóg Gaeilge de chuid Ard-Stiúrthóireacht an Aistriúcháin a bheadh ag teastáil chun ligean d'Fheisirí a gceart chun cáipéisí a léamh as Gaeilge a fheidhmiú i gcruinnithe coiste agus toscaireachta faoi na rialacha nós imeachta, agus deireadh a chur leis an maolú ar úsáid na Gaeilge sa Pharlaimint? An bhfuil an Rialtas buartha nach bhfuil ár gcuóta post san Aontas Eorpach á líonadh againn mar gheall ar an maolú seo, in ainneoin go bhfuil Éire ag íoc isteach sna cistí aistriúcháin agus ateangaireachta cosúil le gach tír eile?

What specific measures are being put in place to ensure the Parliament’s interpretation service can provide Irish during our Council Presidency from 1 July? How many Irish-language staff and interpreters are currently recruited by the Parliament? How many permanent interpreter positions would be required to allow Members to exercise their right to speak Irish in committee and delegation meetings under rule 174 of the rules of procedure? How many extra permanent translator and proofreader positions in the Irish-language department of the Directorate-General for Translation would be required to allow Members to exercise their right to read documents in Irish in committee and delegation meetings under the rules of procedure and end the derogation on the use of Irish in Parliament? Finally, is the Government concerned that we are not filling our quota of posts at EU level because of this derogation, despite the fact that Ireland is paying into translation and interpretation funds like every other country?

I thank the Senator for raising this important question. I am taking this on behalf of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Thomas Byrne.

I will begin by outlining the background to this issue. Irish has been a treaty language since 1973, the year of Ireland's accession, meaning that only the EU treaties were translated into Irish. In 2005, after a long period of campaigning, the Irish Government applied for Irish to become an official and working language in the EU. It was granted this status two years later, in January 2007. However, due to a shortage of translation staff and technological resources, it was announced that there would be a limit to the amount of material provided in Irish compared to other European languages. This limit has been extended on a number of occasions.

In 2015, following a request from the Irish Government, the EU agreed to gradually bring the derogation arrangement to an end by 1 January 2022. At midnight on 31 December 2021, the Irish language was granted full official and working status in the European Union, meaning it was now on a par with all other official EU languages. However, on 12 March 2024, the European Parliament passed a derogation from this requirement, Rule 168, in the case of adequate precautions having been taken, interpreters or translators required for an official language are not available in sufficient numbers. The European Parliament determined that it has insufficient capacity to allow full interpretation service in Irish and Maltese and therefore extended Rule 168 to the end of the tenth parliamentary term in 2029 for these two languages.

The only documents which are guaranteed translation are legal Acts of general application. Despite this, the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, which led on the promotion of the Irish language across all EU institutions, has confirmed that the European Parliament makes a very high percentage of its documentation available in Irish - 80% in both 2022 and 2023 and over 90% in 2024. While a relatively large number of documents is being translated into Irish, the problem primarily arises during committee sessions, where the Parliament continues to assert that there is an insufficient number of personnel to allow for live interpretation into and from the Irish language. I understand this is generally not an issue in plenary sessions.

Increasing the number of Irish interpreters across the EU institutions is a priority for the Government and forms part of wider efforts to increase the number of Irish officials in the EU as part of the strategy, A Career for EU. An extensive series of measures designed to increase the number of Irish language interpreters available to the EU institutions has been ongoing since 2018, including funding for additional third level courses and an internship programme for translators, proofreaders and conference translators within the European Union institutions. This has been achieved with the active support, including financial, of the EU. This issue is raised on a regular basis in the Parliament at both official and political level. We will continue to argue for the ending of the derogation and against any proposal to extend it beyond 2029.

To conclude on a positive note, we continue to work alongside our MEPs to highlight this issue. The 2026 Presidency will be the first Irish Presidency since Irish became a fully operational working language of the European Union in January 2022. The Irish Presidency will demonstrate the Union's commitment to linguistic diversity by integrating Irish into Council business, official communications and cultural events.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. If we cannot solve this during the Irish Presidency of the European Union, when can it be solved? I was in Luxembourg and Brussels last week. In Brussels, I was taking part in an interparliamentary conference with MEPs and representatives from different parliaments. On the note on translation, we were told there would be translation and interpretation available in all of the European languages except Gaelic - it was pronounced like the Americans sometimes pronounce Gaelic for Irish. I was very disappointed to see that.

On the other hand, in the European institutions in Luxembourg we met with the Irish judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Our former Seanadóir, Eugene Regan, was there, as were Judge Colm Mac Eochaidh and Judge Suzanne Kingston. I was delighted to see a recent decision of the court was given to me fully translated into Irish. There is a lot of good happening with the EU but there are failings. There is also a failing to get enough Irish people working in the institutions. This is one where the Government needs to get the finger out. Ní féidir é seo a chur ar an méar fhada a thuilleadh. Is gá gníomhú anois chun dul i ngleic leis an bhfadhb seo.

I again thank Senator Mullen for raising this important issue and for his advocacy for the Irish language. I endeavour to use the Irish language whenever I can. When I visit the European Parliament or we have ministerial engagements in Brussels, I use it as much as I can, at the start and at the end. I acknowledge the commitment of all our MEPs on this issue. Cynthia Ní Mhurchú is one who continues to advocate for the Irish language and puts it front and centre, along with many others. I assure the Senator that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is working to progress this matter at European level. In response to his point, we need to see progress on this. We need to see sufficient staff who have fluent Irish to provide sufficient interpretation for set-piece events, but also to ensure that it can become a working language for many who want to continue in that regard. We need to look at recruitment and ensure that campaigns are focused on those areas within the Gaeltacht regions for people who would have an opportunity to provide that skill set to others. The broader point is that we hope the derogation as it stands is lifted. We will continue to engage with the Parliament on this matter.

I raise an issue concerning Ardgraigue, Barroughter and Clonmoylan bogs in County Galway. People who signed up to the restoration scheme and received a payment were promised an alternative bog but have received nothing. The payment for them has stopped and they still have nowhere to cut turf during a fuel cost crisis.

A second issue is that the families who chose not to sign up to the scheme, but have been prevented from cutting turf because of a High Court injunction sought by the Department against a turf-cutting contractor in the area, have been cut off from a vital source of fuel. This is the critical time of year when turf must be harvested and dried before winter. If they miss this window they are facing into a winter without adequate heating in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. That is simply unacceptable when people are already struggling with soaring energy bills. These families were repeatedly told that habitat restoration schemes were voluntary, yet they now feel they are being forced into surrendering their rights through legal pressure and injunctions. They did not accept once-off payments because they wanted to retain the ability to continue cutting turf. Their rights have been denied.

These are families, many of them elderly, who rely on turf as their primary source of heating. The Government has used the resources and might of the State against vulnerable older people.

They have been coerced and bullied. They are people who are simply trying to heat their homes.

I hoped the Minister would be here and I am really disappointed he is not.

Serious concerns are being raised by these families regarding the designation process surrounding these bogs and whether the statutory instruments complied with the timelines set out in Article 4(4) of the habitats directive. The article clearly states that sites must be designated "within six years at most", yet the statutory instruments for these bogs were not signed until 2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively, despite the sites being identified in 1997. The families believe there is a legitimate question as to whether the process complied with the required legal timelines. I believe the Government knows that but is simply putting the issue off because it does not think these people would have the resources or the time to take it to court.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has failed these people. Families in the area who signed up and took the payment were misled and, in my opinion, conned. They were promised an alternative turf bank and they have received nothing. Families who did not sign up have been forcibly stopped from cutting turf. It is voluntary on the outside but mandatory by design.

There is a resolution. With the stroke of a pen, this matter could be resolved. The Minister could lift the injunction, allow these families to cut their turf through the activities requiring consent, ARC, process and show that the Government understands the reality facing ordinary people during a cost-of-living crisis. The fact that the Minister has basically ignored all correspondence in relation to this matter is worrying. I ask him to sign an ARC and ensure an alternative bog is provided, as promised, for the people who signed up for the scheme.

It is important that Seanadóirí are informed if the line Minister cannot attend.

If I may, I understand the Minister and Minister of State have never answered questions on this issue. The response to any parliamentary questions I have submitted has been to send me a book guideline.

I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. I am happy to take this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the three bogs the Senator referred to in the special areas of conservation, SACs, in County Galway. I reaffirm our commitment to protecting Ireland's valuable peatlands and working with all stakeholders.

There is no question that peatlands are of cultural, economic and ecological importance to Ireland and are profoundly significant for our communities and history. They are a cornerstone of many communities, a source of heating, a way of passing on knowledge and a deeply held right for many families.

The EU habitats directive requires member states to select sites for the protection of habitats that are considered threatened, including active raised bogs which are considered to be in danger of disappearing within the EU territory. Ireland has selected 63 sites for the protection of active raised bog habitats, including Ardgraigue, Barroughter and Clonmoylan bogs, and designated these bogs as special areas of conservation. This protects approximately 9% of our original raised bog resource.

Ireland, like all EU member states, is bound in law by the requirements of the EU habitats directive, which is designed to ensure the protection of certain habitats and species within sites designated as SACs and which are considered threatened in the EU. The sites chosen for designation under the directive are those which are significant from a conservation perspective, not just at a national but also at a European level.

The Government adopted a clear long-term strategy to protect these sites. As far back as 1999, the Government announced arrangements for the cessation of turf-cutting on raised bogs special areas of conservation and a compensation package, including for the three bogs in the Galway SAC. It also announced that commercial turf-cutting would cease on certain SACs and a ten-year derogation was given for domestic turf-cutting. At the end of this derogation, following extensive stakeholder consultation, the cessation of turf-cutting compensation scheme was launched in 2011. The scheme was advertised again in 2024, closing to new applicants in 2025.

The scheme is comprised of a payment of €1,500 per annum, index-linked and tax free, for 15 years or relocation, where feasible, to a non-designated bog, together with a once-off legal agreement payment of €500. While applicants were waiting for relocation sites to be investigated, they could have opted for an annual payment or opted to receive an annual supply of up to 15 tonnes of cut turf delivered to their homes.

Under the compensation scheme, €8.9 million has been paid to date to 370 eligible applicants from the three bogs in question. On average, each eligible turf-cutter across these bogs has received a payment of €24,085, exempt from capital gains tax. Over €760,000 has been paid for the purchase of lands and turbary rights on Barroughter and Clonmoylan bog SACs under the voluntary bog purchase scheme. The estimated cost for the provision of payments over the lifetime of the 15-year scheme is in the region of €96 million. This is a significant support by the State to the peatland community and has helped to ensure the conservation of important peatland sites of unique ecological value.

With regard to restoration on these SACs, the first phase of restoration works on Ardgraigue bog was completed in February 2025, with phase 2, scheduled for later this year, currently at planning stage and subject to landowner consent. Restoration works on Clonmoylan bog SAC are at an earlier stage of development and restoration works at Barroughter bog are also currently at planning stage, with an initial phase of works anticipated in late 2026 or early 2027.

I appreciate the Minister of State's reply but the central issue remains unresolved. The turf-cutting season is happening now. Every passing week makes it less likely that turf will be saved in time for winter. If this injunction remains in place, these families will face cold homes and unaffordable heating costs. It is their only means of heating their homes. I have people in their 80s writing to me.

The Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, did not address the people who did not sign up to the scheme. He spoke the entire time about the people who signed up to the scheme but he did not mention the people who did not. It was supposed to be a voluntary scheme but, by design, it was mandatory. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, has options available to him. He can return to the High Court and lift the injunction or he can use the ARC process to allow turf-cutting activities to proceed lawfully. People in Galway are made to believe it was their choice if they participated in the restoration scheme and now they have been cut off from accessing turf.

I want to make a complaint about the fact that neither the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, nor the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, will address this. The latter has not come before the Seanad to address this issue and he has not answered parliamentary questions either. That has to be addressed.

It is still the case, obviously, that SACs are legally protected under European legislation. The cutting of turf and any associated works remain a regulated activity on these bogs.

I assure the Senator that every effort is being made to support individuals who have ceased turf-cutting on these protected bogs. The cessation of turf-cutting compensation scheme has operated successfully for 15 years, paying out €86 million to date in compensation to over 3,500 turf-cutters cross the country. This scheme has provided families with index-linked annual payments exempt from capital gains tax and relocation options, where feasible. The majority of turf-cutters on the network of raised bog SACs have accepted compensation and others consented to restoration works under the protected raised bog restoration incentive scheme.

Department officials are considering a new phase of support for scheme applicants and will continue to strike the balance between the need to support people and our obligations to protect our valuable peatland areas.

I welcome to the House my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon. He is speaking on behalf of the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill. He will convey my sentiments to her, which I also propose to do in other forums.

It is never inappropriate to thank the healthcare workers of this country for their valiant, courageous and selfless service during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is never inappropriate and should be done on any occasion. Phil Ní Sheaghdha, the general secretary of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, and president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, put it very well on the excellent "Prime Time" programme on 28 April when she said that we applauded the healthcare workers at the time of Covid and we should support into the future those who are unfortunate long-term victims.

To turn to the specific issue, long-term Covid manifests itself through fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog, persistent cough, chest pains, muscle and joint pains, loss of taste and smell, and cardiac conditions. It is not contingent on the gravity of the Covid in the first instance. In other words, somebody could have had mild Covid and still have long Covid.

Healthcare workers were at high risk during the pandemic. Studies show that close contact, inadequate protective equipment, particularly early on, and an inability to distance, because it was not possible to distance in their work situation, increased the risk. Indeed, the figures are startling. Some 10,000 healthcare personnel and social care workers contracted Covid at some point. Twenty-three healthcare workers lost their lives. More than 120, and up to 150, INMO members and social care workers remain affected with long Covid. I thank Ms Karen Eccles, who is the health and safety officer of the INMO, for supporting me with some data here. That many workers remain affected with long Covid. They want to but are unable to go back to work. Moving them to sick leave, which is proposed to happen on 1 June, will affect their mortgages, the education of their children and all the normal bills and expectations they have. It is a small number of people who are still affected at this point. A number of people with long Covid have recovered and gone back. The numbers now are quite low so the potential bill is not a big one.

Those people have financial needs. They need medical support. Without this recognition, their symptoms can be wrongly labelled and they can be considered malingerers, if people remember that term from our childhood, when, in fact, it is an unjustified tag. Recognition of their condition will result in the establishment of appropriate safety management systems for further assistance. If it could be recognised as an occupational injury, which it is, as is the case in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Korea and Taiwan, and we would like to think we are up there with those countries, then they could get the benefits therefrom. Those countries apply the presumption of occupational exposure leading to the injury for high-risk occupations, unless, of course, it is proven to be a bogus claim, or whatever.

Providing sick pay will allow a focus on recovery and can affect retention of healthcare workers and morale. Sick pay for healthcare workers is essential to maintaining a healthy workforce, ensuring public safety and the overall well-being of those who have been affected. Sick pay for victims of long Covid will provide financial security. The expectation of it will give job satisfaction for all because with the hantavirus recently, we do not know what is coming in the future and it is important that nurses and all healthcare workers feel they will be protected. It will affect morale. It will help to attract talent, which is an issue at the moment. There is a compelling case here. It is not a big bill. It is a moral issue. It is a responsibility of the State to deal with the issue.

I thank the Senator for raising this important Commencement matter, which provides an important opportunity to again acknowledge the very real and ongoing impact of long Covid on a small number of healthcare workers. I am, as the Senator said, taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Health, Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, who is acutely aware that, while the acute phase of the pandemic has passed, its effects have not disappeared for everyone. Recent public discussion, including media reporting on the lived experience of people affected by long Covid, underlines the complex, unpredictable and at times debilitating nature of this condition.

We cannot forget the enormous contribution of our healthcare workers who became ill while caring for the needs of others in extraordinary circumstances that continue to be deeply challenging. From the outset of the pandemic, exceptional measures were put in place to recognise the risks faced by healthcare staff, particularly during the period before effective personal protective equipment, PPE, vaccination and widespread community transmission were established. In that context, a temporary special scheme for long Covid was introduced in July 2022 for eligible public health sector workers. That scheme was unique to the health sector and has provided sustained support at full pay for almost five years through special leave with pay initially and then the special scheme itself. While the scheme was extended on several occasions at the request of the Minister for Health, the Labour Court ultimately recommended a final extension and the scheme concluded on 31 December 2025.

It is important to be clear that the conclusion of that temporary scheme did not mean an end to supports. Staff who remained unfit to return to work moved seamlessly into the public service sick leave scheme, ensuring continuity of income protection and access to further supports. Since the conclusion of the scheme, a significant number of staff have returned to work, including on phased return arrangements, while others continue to be supported through the sick leave scheme and related provisions. Under the public service sick leave scheme, staff may access paid sick leave and, where appropriate, further supports, such as temporary rehabilitative remuneration and the critical illness protocol.

In parallel, the health service continues to focus on supporting recovery and return to work, where possible, including through reasonable workplace accommodations and adjusted duties. The Minister is very conscious, however, that for some individuals their recovery has been slower and more uncertain than initially anticipated. In light of this, the Taoiseach met with health unions on Thursday, 30 April. Following that engagement, the Taoiseach asked the HSE to ensure that management discretion under the critical illness protocol is actively and compassionately applied in cases involving long Covid so that staff continue to be supported while the Government considers what further long-term measures may be appropriate.

This matter remains under consideration across the Government, including by the Department of Health, the HSE and the Department of Social Protection, with the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Protection having met in recent weeks to discuss ongoing supports. They welcomed the progress to date, noting that a significant number of staff have been supported in returning to work, with others continuing to receive support through the public service sick leave scheme.

It is important to note that we need to keep those who are feeling longer effects in our thoughts in this time and to acknowledge the enormous contribution and service they have given to the State.

I appreciate the Minister of State’s last remarks. I am a natural optimist and believe in a half-full glass rather than one that is half empty so I will interpret some of the coded language as suggesting that something may be done about this. In case I am wrongly interpreting it, it would be shocking if it is not. I want to make that clear. I have no ambiguity about this. It is our duty as public representatives to say what should be said. The truth is that anyone still genuinely suffering long Covid should not be stopped on 1 June from receiving full sick pay as was. I accept good supports were there but the supports for that relatively small number of people, all of them great professionals and all sending out signals to others, should continue and there should be no change in their position until they recover.

Again, I wish to assure the Senator and the House that this issue continues to receive very careful and compassionate attention at the highest level of the Government. I welcome the Taoiseach’s engagement with the nursing unions. From discussions with the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, I know she is working closely with the Taoiseach’s office, the HSE and with staff representatives to monitor the position to ensure existing supports make an impact as extended but also to consider the further long-term responses that may be possible for those who are affected and that those who remain unable to return to work continue to have access to the full range of entitlements available to them and not just the public service sick leave scheme including paid sick leave, the temporary rehabilitation remuneration and, where criteria are met, the critical illness protocol. Discretion does need to be given to the HSE. I welcome the Taoiseach’s intervention in that regard.

I thank the Minister of State for being here this morning. I raise this Commencement matter in relation to compulsory purchase orders, CPO, in relation to greenways. This is something that is becoming more of an issue across the country. I am from County Cork and I raise it having met farmers who will be affected by potential CPOs on the Cork-Kinsale greenway.

First, I want to say greenways are a fantastic facility and amenity. As they can bring a lot to an area in terms of attracting tourists and bringing income to an area, this is no way guided by anything that might be perceived as anti-greenway. However, what I am very much against is the compulsory purchase of privately-owned land and particularly privately-owned farm land when it comes to developing greenways.

From what I have seen on the Cork-Kinsale greenway and the landowners who will be affected by this there has been an extreme lack of public consultation. It has been very disingenuous because notifications have been sent out to say full consultation has taken place with landowners and that that box has been ticked when that simply is not the case. The proposed CPOs for this proposed greenway will sever farms. At a time when we talk so much about generational renewal and biosecurity, these two issues will be affected by the compulsory purchase of these lands for this greenway. We are using these old railway lines for greenways, which is well and good when they are publicly- or State-owned or owned by the local authority. However, much of the land in question here was purchased back in 1969. Landowners are being told what to do with their land. It is presenting many challenges. It is not viable or sustainable and there has been a massive lack of consultation.

The Waterford greenway, where the vast majority of land used was public, was a successful endeavour in terms of cost at around €20 million. By comparison, the Kerry greenway is in the region of €70 million. It very much seems as though a haphazard approach is being taken by TII. What is being done is in no way compliant with what was set out in the pathways document for national and regional greenways in which it was agreed by TII and the Irish Farmers Association that the use of private land for greenways would be on a mutually agreed basis. There is nothing mutually agreed about what is happening in Cork and Kinsale. There is a lack of consultation. I do not believe it is fair. It is not for TII to step in and take these lands for an amenity. I could understand if it was a CPO for a road, critical infrastructure or wayleaves. That would be incredibly necessary but this is not necessary. It is being done without consultation. I appreciate there is a legal framework around it in terms of the powers to local authorities under the Planning and Development Act whereby they can use CPO for any need to further their duties. Looking at the Roads Act and the Clifford and Anor v. An Bord Pleanála case where the judge read greenways into the definition of roads which allows compulsory purchase of property for the progression of roads, I am not sure if it requires legislative change or what is the best way to do this. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State’s reply.

I thank Senator Lynch for her very important question. It gives me the opportunity to discuss this matter on behalf of the Minister for Transport. At the outset, I think it is important to outline the respective roles of some of the main stakeholders within the greenway programme: the Minister for Transport has responsibility for overall policy and Exchequer funding in relation to greenways while the planning, design and construction of individual greenways is a matter for Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, as the approving authority, in conjunction with the relevant local authorities. Local authorities, in turn, use the Code of Best Practice for National and Regional Greenways as the guide for planning and delivering schemes.

The code was published in late 2021 and was developed in partnership with a range of representatives from the rural recreation, tourism, sport, farming, local business development and transport sectors. It sets out a clear, structured, and transparent approach to greenway development; an approach that prioritises early engagement, voluntary agreements and minimising impacts on landowners.

The code states that State-owned lands should be used to the greatest extent possible when designing greenways. Where it is not feasible to use State-owned lands, or where there is limited State-owned lands, then the approach of sustained and regular engagement with local landowners is firmly embedded within the code. This engagement is a critical step to ensure that severance of land and farm holdings is avoided where feasible. The code also ensures that an independent agronomist is available to assist landowners with their queries and provide advice on the impact of any route proposals.

The preferred approach in relation to land acquisition for greenways is to procure required land by voluntary land agreements. All reasonable efforts should be made to acquire land on a voluntary basis. It is only as a measure of last resort that a compulsory purchase order will be pursued by a local authority, and only after sustained engagement with individual landowners.

CPOs are a long-standing statutory mechanism available to local authorities for public infrastructure projects that is justified by the common good. Their use is subject to strict legal processes and oversight, including independent oversight through An Coimisiún Pleanála. Even where a CPO commences, there is further ongoing engagement throughout the entire process to try and reach a voluntary land agreement. The CPO process also includes a mandatory obligation to seek to negotiate a settlement of the compensation issues including accommodation works.

Where agreement cannot be reached, the statutory arbitration process is available. It is important to highlight that most claims are resolved by negotiated agreement without the need for a decision from the arbitrator.

I advise that CPOs are truly a measure of last resort, but there remain situations where, despite best efforts, agreement cannot be reached and this legal mechanism is required to ensure that a route can be fully delivered. A real-life example of this can be seen in the Clifden to Recess section of the Connemara greenway. This route has been in development since 2013, with TII taking over funding and delivery of the scheme in 2021 alongside Galway County Council. Approximately 16 km of the route has been delivered to date via agreed co-operation between landowners and the local authority. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to deliver the remaining 6 km of the route despite extensive engagement over a protracted period. As such, Galway County Council proceeded to a CPO in 2024.

The code requires extensive consultation before such steps are considered. Landowners must be engaged with at an early stage and their concerns listened to. It is true that such collaboration for the facilitation of greenways can be efficiently delivered, bringing a huge array of social, health, commercial and environmental benefits to the local area, as well as further afield.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I note what he said. It is disappointing, in that the points that have been laid out are largely based on consultation. If that was always actively adhered to, it may have more of an effect.

In terms of the consultation the Minister of State outlined, where is it being monitored or checked in terms of local authorities and TII to ensure that it is actually happening? I appreciate he provided the example of Clifden where, despite arbitration, a resolution could not be reached. In many greenways across the country, consultation is not taking place. Boxes are being ticked and the extensive consultation to which the Minister of State referred is simply not happening. This is leading to massive uncertainty for landowners.

The farmers I met in Waterfall in Cork do not know what is going to happen in a process that has been ongoing since last year. They are not getting adequate consultation. They have been told there will be CPOs, but other than that they know very little about the process. The lack of certainty is incredibly damaging for those concerned and their businesses. It is also damaging for the process, which is allegedly based on consultation. People have lost all trust in the process. Where is the process being monitored? What safeguards are in place? It is fine to say that a CPO is a last resort but at the end of the day, it is compulsory. It would appear that the negotiations prior to that are not always adhered to in a clear and transparent manner.

I thank the Senator. I agree with her sentiment that what we regard as consultation is not what is happening. Sending a letter or notification is not consultation. I saw this happen in the national greenway from Athlone to Galway, which has not proceeded because the consultation is not real consultation and there is no discussion or engagement.

I reiterate, as the Senator has, that greenways have a significant benefit beyond the transport sector in areas such as regional economic development, public health, tourism, climate resilience and connectivity. In 2026, the Department will invest almost €44 million in greenways. The primary objective across proposed greenway schemes is to acquire land on a voluntary basis. This is stated explicitly in the code of best practice for national regional greenways. The CPOs are not entered into lightly by local authorities and are only pursued where voluntary land acquisition cannot be achieved after sustained comprehensive engagement. The Senator asked me how engagement is monitored. That is a good question. I will come to that later.

The code recognises the practical reality that greenways must be continuous and a missing section can undermine the safety, accessibility and viability of the entire route. While voluntary agreement is always the preferred option, in certain circumstances CPOs have to be used. I understand the code was developed by a range of stakeholders, including the IFA, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association. I am also advised that an annual review of the code takes place, the most recent of which took place in March 2026. A commitment has been made to complete the review of the code, which is due to terminate in December of this year.

The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and I have had discussions with our officials this week. We will get further feedback from them to determine how we can improve the code and make it more workable. At the end of the day, it is important that engagement is not letters, emails or whatever, but rather interaction with people on the ground who have experience and can discuss with landowners the intricacies and their concerns and how we can take it from there.