I thank the Minister for coming in. We do not often get the appropriate line Minister so we are grateful for having him here. I raise the issue of civil legal aid and how the system is currently failing survivors of domestic violence. We know that legal aid for victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV, is overstretched, under-resourced and not meeting demand. In 2024, the Free Legal Advice Centres's phone lines received a record high number of queries in relation to domestic violence. This is a clear indication of the growing, unmet legal need in this area.

We have heard stark statements about the state of our civil legal aid scheme, which is in crisis and on the brink of collapse due to chronic underfunding and under-resourcing. The civil legal aid scheme is failing to meet that legal need. A core problem is the rigid and out-of-date means testing scheme. The means test is a barrier to accessing legal aid and is, therefore, a barrier to justice for survivors of domestic violence, as is the financial contribution requirement. Domestic violence survivors may need to make repeated applications for legal aid. That is repeated financial contributions, which puts a huge strain on them financially. It is crucial that we understand how financial abuse is often used as a factor in domestic violence cases, further restricting women's ability to access that legal aid. Some women may be deemed ineligible for legal aid because of joint assets, over which in reality they have no control. Access to free legal aid is vital in cases of domestic violence involving financial abuse, as victim-survivors may not have access to their own finances to pay for legal services.

The income threshold for the scheme is woefully out of date, having not been updated since 2006. This greatly reduces the proportion of people who will qualify for legal aid. The threshold needs to be raised urgently to account for inflation. Many people in dire need, including domestic violence survivors, are effectively locked out of our legal aid system, as the threshold is 20 years out of date and does not reflect the cost of living in today's society. Both reports that arose from the independent review of the civil legal aid scheme last year identified the urgent need to raise the threshold and associated allowances, including that the accommodation allowance be deducted from the income assessment, to reflect the rising costs of accommodation. The minority report published under the legal aid review recommended that the income threshold be raised from the current figure of €18,000 to €30,000. Moreover, it called for the complete removal of the means test in cases of domestic violence.

It has been a year since the Minister received the reports from the legal aid review. I ask him to provide an update on the progress to implement those recommendations, particularly pertaining to the raising of the financial eligibility threshold. It is vital that we ensure sufficient staffing of the Legal Aid Board and affiliated solicitors, as well as adequate training of the legal aid solicitors on violence against women. This was a key recommendation from the Council of Europe's group of experts responsible for monitoring Ireland's compliance with the Istanbul Convention on preventing violence against women. I note the very positive work being done under the zero tolerance strategy in regards to legal aid staff completing domestic violence awareness CPD training. That is really important. It is crucial that the training also includes an understanding of economic violence, namely, how perpetrators might be exploiting the lower threshold for assessing legal aid to drag the victim-survivor through endless court cycles of expensive litigation as a means of maintaining control in post-separation abuse cases. There is a lot of research to show that perpetrators use this as a tool time and again.

Is the DSGBV training mandatory for all legal aid lawyers working for the Legal Aid Board? That would be great to hear. What action has been take on the implementation of the actions from the two reviews from last year? The minority report also emphasises the socioeconomic return on investment in legal aid. It adds that the Legal Aid Board must be sufficiently resourced to carry out the transformation envisaged by the review. It also includes that Legal Aid Board solicitors should be paid at the same rates as Civil Service lawyers, in bodies such as the Chief State Solicitor's office. The report further recommended a reorientation of civil legal aid services towards targeted, early and preventative services. It notes that disadvantaged individuals from marginalised communities are particularly vulnerable when it comes to domestic violence.

They need early legal advice and advocacy where they are located in their communities. This particularly relates to people from rural backgrounds.

I thank Senator Stephenson for raising this important issue. As she will be aware, access to justice is an absolutely fundamental corner-stone of our justice system. In order for laws to operate effectively and for people to get the benefit of the laws we enact in the Oireachtas, there has to be a mechanism by which they can seek the administration of justice through our courts. As the Senator recognises, nowhere is this more significant than in cases where victims of domestic violence need the court’s support.

Civil legal aid and advice is provided for qualifying individuals in a range of civil matters. There are two elements to the scheme. One is legal advice and the other is legal representation. As the Senator indicated, eligibility is determined by way of a means test and a merits test. The statutory body responsible for the provision of civil legal aid is the Legal Aid Board, which gives advice and aid to persons of modest means. A range of civil legal issues are covered by the scheme, including domestic violence applications, which I am pleased to say are prioritised by the Legal Aid Board. In addition, the civil legal aid regulations from 2017 provide that no contribution is payable for those who are applying solely for orders under the Domestic Violence Act 2018.

Having a civil legal aid scheme and a Legal Aid Board that is equipped to meet the changing needs of society is critical to ensuring access to justice, particularly for those in need. As the Senator will be aware, the recommendations of the civil legal aid review are currently being examined by my officials. This comprehensive review was the first of its kind since the scheme’s establishment some 46 years ago. Members of the review group included the former Chief Justice, Mr. Frank Clarke, and representatives from the Legal Aid Board, FLAC, the legal profession and academia. As the Senator indicated, I got the review group reports last year, which were published in July 2025. They identify several key areas for reform, including the potential to modify the application for the legal merits test in certain circumstances and to provide access to legal representation, irrespective of means, for victims of domestic violence. I have considered the report and I have decided that I want to seek to implement the majority report. Finance is obviously an issue I have to deal with in terms of having the funds available to implement these reports. I have decided that the report that is most implementable is the majority report.

When it comes to the commencement of recommendations and the implementation of the report, however, I have to go through a budgetary process. I could not just decide to introduce the recommendations, say, this month because I have not got the money available and lined up as a result of the budgetary measures and budgetary agreements. As the Senator will know, a new budgetary process is starting and the budget will be in early October. I have instructed officials that I want to include within the justice provision for budget 2027 funding for the improvement and commencement of the implementation of the majority report. A critical aspect of any implementation will therefore be the careful sequencing of reforms. Many of them would need to work in parallel with other ongoing reforms in the civil justice system. In that context, both my Department and the Legal Aid Board are working closely together to ensure any proposed reforms are developed as part of the annual budgetary estimates process, taking into account the broader implications for Government policy.

The recommendations of the review will also have to be considered alongside the findings from Ireland's first legal needs survey conducted in 2025. While preliminary results of the survey have been released, further analysis is under way, with my Department working closely with the OECD on final outputs. The survey will provide an important insight into the legal needs of people living in the country and will help inform future policy development in this area. I am committed and I want to see the majority report implemented. I want to see the commencement of the implementation of that. I am going to start that in the context of budgetary discussions.

I welcome that the Minister is committed to implementing the majority report. I will ask him about the minority report's recommendation around the threshold that is currently €18,000 for eligibility and that it be moved up to €30,000, given that it has not been increased since 2006. That specific part of the minority report is crucial in regard to the way that coercive control and financial abuse is used in domestic violence situations.

When we talk about access to justice, legal aid is a core component of that but so are stronger protections within the judicial process. What are the Minister's thoughts on the disclosure in regard to the counselling notes piece? I know he was discussing it at the justice committee yesterday. I am concerned that the amendments to section 19A do not go far enough. They do not limit the Garda or the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, from seeking counselling notes. They do not strengthen protections around disclosures and, crucially, survivors are still required to hand over deeply personal counselling notes to legal teams, including the accused and defence teams. I am very concerned that what was put forward does not answer that.

As indicated, my objective is to implement the majority report. I do not have sufficient funding to implement the minority report, to be frank with the Senator. In regard to what I have got to do, if I increased the thresholds, and I hope to do that, it will necessarily result in there being more work for the Legal Aid Board to do. I have to ensure there are sufficient resources within the Legal Aid Board to be able to do that.

As the Senator will be aware, a range of supports are available for people experiencing domestic abuse. We discussed some of them yesterday at committee; I will come back to that presently. It is important to try to ensure there is greater access for people to the civil legal aid system, particularly for those who are victims of domestic abuse.

In regard to what the Senator said about counselling notes, I will have an opportunity in the Seanad when the miscellaneous provisions Bill comes here. We had a very good discussion on it yesterday on Committee Stage. I am very satisfied that the measures I introduced and got through Committee Stage yesterday will significantly strengthen the current situation. The current situation is unacceptable. I am putting in place a statutory presumption that there will be non-disclosure of counselling notes but, as the Senator will obviously be aware, they cannot be completely banned. That is the clear advice that I and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre have received. We have got to get a balancing act, and the balancing act I will be discussing here in the Seanad when the Bill comes to it is the suitable one.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire ar ais arís chuig an Seanad. The Minister is very welcome back to the Seanad. I thank him for taking time out of his busy schedule to take this Commencement here this morning. His presence is always very much appreciated.

As the Minister well knows, a CCTV scheme offers significant benefits for communities, homes and businesses by deterring crime and improving overall safety. The Act is a strong deterrent to potential offenders. It assists authorities in identifying suspects and resolving disputes. Visible cameras discourage vandalism, antisocial behaviour and trespassing, creating a safer overall environment for our neighbourhoods.

As the Minister knows, the people of Carrickmacross have been waiting for some time on their CCTV scheme but, thankfully, things are now on the move. I thank the Minister for his assistance in pushing this along since he came into office a short time ago. He and I spoke about this particular subject on a number of occasions. The scheme in Carrickmacross consists of 17 cameras, which are being installed in 14 strategic locations throughout the town. The locations of these cameras have been identified by the Garda and three of them will have dual locations, which will be of assistance in relation to comprehensive coverage. Signage is being displayed throughout the town at the moment to ensure the public will be well aware of where these cameras are located.

The people of Carrickmacross have been waiting for some time for these CCTV cameras. I acknowledge the Minister's input in trying to push this particular scheme on. We have had one in Monaghan town for the past year or two. It has proven to be hugely successful in that it gives people great confidence as they go about their daily business, be it during daylight hours or in darkness, to know that there is someone looking out for them, if I can put it that way. The people of Carrickmacross are asking when they can expect their scheme to go live. I hope the Minister might be able to give us a date as to when this big switch-on will take place.

Like the Senator, I want to see CCTV rolled out throughout the country. It provides a great source of protection to members of the public. It is also a very helpful tool for An Garda Síochána in ensuring that it can police an area thoroughly and professionally.

As the Senator knows, community safety is a top priority for me, the Department and the Government. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their communities. CCTV in public places has a role in giving people a greater sense of security. It is also effective in deterring criminal activity and antisocial behaviour and assisting with the investigation of crime. I am therefore fully aware why the people of Carrickmacross want to see the CCTV system up and running. The consideration and operation of community CCTV by local authorities is a matter, ultimately, for the local authority concerned. As Minister, I have no role in the operations of the local authorities, and updates on the roll-out of individual community CCTV schemes should be sought from the relevant local authority. I am pleased to inform the Senator that Monaghan is among the local authorities to have rolled out community CCTV schemes in conjunction with the Garda and with funding from my Department. Other local authorities have done so as well.

The Garda national community engagement bureau offers support and assistance in relation to all applications and processes. Each application is evaluated on the principles of necessity, proportionality and legality. This ensures that every application receives the necessary and robust review to ensure that the CCTV application will withstand a human rights and privacy screening test. All applications must be presented to the CCTV advisory committee and the need for each camera justified.

The recording devices Act provides for a new regime for the authorisation and operation of CCTV schemes. Part 5 of that Act, when commenced, will introduce these new arrangements. Part 8 stipulates the requirement for the Garda Commissioner to draft a new code of practice. The aim of the code of practice is to provide further detail on the general operation of public CCTV. It also aims to ensure that public CCTV is used only for policing purposes and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. The Garda launched a public consultation for a draft code of practice on public CCTV on 27 January 2026.

In addition to seeking the views of the public, the Commissioner, as required by the Act, formally sought input from me, the Policing and Community Safety Authority, Fiosrú, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. This consultation was also extended to the Local Government Management Agency. The public and statutory consultations are now completed and the code is finalised. The code will not commence until after the enactment of the recording devices Bill 2025, which will amend the transitional arrangements for existing CCTV applications submitted but not yet approved under the existing regime. Upon enactment of the Bill, the Garda will forward the code of practice to me for formal commencement.

I am conscious that the Senator is particularly concerned about the scheme in Carrickmacross, when it will commence and when it will be available. I cannot give him a specific answer in respect of that but, certainly, engagement with the local authority there and the Garda is extremely important. I am happy to engage with the Senator in respect of that to ensure that the system can operate to the maximum effect possible in the near future. I know that he is tirelessly raising this issue of getting the CCTV scheme up and running in Carrickmacross. That is clearly something the people of the town want to see. It is of huge benefit, as I said, not just to the Garda but also the local community. It provides them with a greater sense of safety if people who come in with bad intentions know that they will be recorded if they are up to criminal activity in the area.

I thank the Minister for his response. I again thank him sincerely for his input in trying to progress this scheme. As I said at the outset, the people of Carrickmacross have been waiting for a long time. From my experience of the CCTV system, one of the pieces of feedback and the learnings that have come back from it is the frustration by all concerned with the length of time it takes to get from the initial application to approval status. There seems to be an awful lot of fences and hurdles to jump before you get the green light. Thankfully, the people of Carrickmacross have jumped all those hurdles now. I thank the local gardaí, the local authority and the local authority members for all their work in progressing this scheme. We look forward to it going live, so to speak, in the coming weeks.

As the Senator identified, the local authority plays a vital role in respect of this in its collaboration with the Garda, but also my Department does have funding available. We provide grants of up to €40,000 for capital expenditure and up to €5,000 for maintenance. I am informed, and the Senator will be very pleased to hear, that grants worth €45,000 have already been awarded to Monaghan under this scheme. That is something we will just need to continue to roll out. Everyone, as I said, has the right to feel safe. The scheme was extended not only to cover new CCTV schemes but also to provide funding for the extension or upgrade of existing CCTV systems which are incomplete or obsolete. Monaghan, as I said, got €45,000, but in total grants of over €968,000 have been approved to date for 36 community CCTV schemes. That is something I want to see continue.

Senator Gallagher must be the luckiest Senator around.

Why is that?

His Commencement matters get drawn every week. I will have to watch the lotto numbers he picks as well.

I thank the Minister for taking this. I want to raise the growing issue of the lack of car parking spaces in newly built apartment developments, particularly in areas like Tallaght and Citywest. I am not the first to raise this in recent times and I will not be the last. We all know how desperately we need these new developments. We welcome them. I am delighted to see my constituents getting their forever homes. It is brilliant in south Dublin each week to see so many homes being advertised on choice-based lettings and seeing the housing list moving, and we badly need more homes.

However, people are so frustrated that the planning of these developments seems completely out of touch with the reality of everyday life for so many families. A good example of this is Airton Plaza in Tallaght. The apartments are fabulously built to such a high standard in an excellent location but there are just 184 parking spaces for more than 320 apartments. That is roughly half a car parking space per apartment. The problems happening there were predicted. Each time a development came before the council, the majority of the councillors at the time, myself included, flagged that the lack of car parking spaces would be a huge issue. Residents are struggling to park anywhere near their homes. Families are under pressure. Shift workers are stuck because public transport just is not reliable enough for people starting work at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning or finishing work late. That is the reality.

Our public transport system is not at a level yet where people can fully depend on it. Particularly in areas like Tallaght and Citywest, people still need their cars. They need them for work, childcare, school runs, caring responsibilities and just daily life. People should be able to drive if they choose to. It should not feel like people are punished for owning a car or being designed out of having one. We see the same concerns now across Citywest and other high-density developments: overspill parking, blocked roads, neighbourhood disputes, frustration in communities and huge stress for residents trying to find parking every evening at a time when they should be enjoying their new home.

I commend the other politicians on raising the issue of a lack of car parking. In Tallaght village, there are serious plans to remove on-street car parking that has been there for over 50 years as part of enhancement works. For 50 years residents and businesses have had car parking only for there to be a chance that it will be taken away, while literally less than five minutes around the corner in Airton Plaza there are huge issues because not enough parking is provided. Again, it is predictable how this will turn out - damage to businesses and frustrated residents. I just wonder where the common sense is.

One of the most worrying things I am hearing and witnessing is that people are refusing housing offers because they know there is no realistic parking solution for their family. That is raising alarm bells. I urge the Minister to look again at the current apartment parking standards, especially in suburban areas where public transport infrastructure just is not where it needs to be. We need to start looking at practical solutions as well, whether that is additional parking facilities, shared parking arrangements, park and ride expansion or exploring dedicated parking lots in high-density areas.

If we just keep building developments, which we need so badly, without the supporting infrastructure we are just going to frustrate people and cause them stress.

I thank Senator Costello for raising this important issue. Obviously, it is within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister, Deputy James Browne, and the Minister of State, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, but I am very happy to be here today to answer it and to take the opportunity to update Senator Costello and the House on the issue.

At the outset, I absolutely agree with the Senator. It is fine for people who live very close to the place where they work or who have all the facilities around them to say they do not need to use a car, but for people who have to travel distances to get to work, bring their kids to sporting facilities or do their shopping, it is a fact of life that people do need a vehicle and we need to try to facilitate them as much as possible.

I can assure the Senator the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, and I and the Government recognise the importance of adequate parking provision within new developments. In this regard, parking rates are addressed at a national level in the sustainable residential development and compact settlement guidelines. These guidelines were issued in 2024 under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. As set out in the specific planning policy requirement, SPPR, No. 3 of the settlement guidelines, graduated maximum car parking rates are based on proximity to urban centres and sustainable transport options. These range from one space per dwelling in central or accessible locations to two spaces per dwelling in more peripheral or intermediate locations with higher rates of car dependency. I have listened to what the Senator has had to say about Airton Plaza in Tallaght in respect of that. I cannot give a detail as to where that fits in with regard to the ranges. These rates do not include bays assigned for use by a car club, designated short stay on-street electric vehicle charging stations or accessible parking spaces. These guidelines aim to support the use of public transport, walking and cycling to reduce traffic congestion, lower emissions and improve air quality, contributing to national climate goals. They encourage more sustainable urban development by prioritising accessible and connected communities. The provision of car parking can add a significant cost to developments and this factor is taken into account.

While the settlement guidelines set out the general policy approach, where planning permission is sought for particular residential development proposals, the planning authorities and An Coimisiún Pleanála will need to be satisfied that the necessary and appropriate provision of parking is provided in accordance with the requirements of the settlement guidelines. For developments of 100 residential units or more, the settlement guidelines recommend that a mobility travel plan is prepared in support of the proposed parking arrangements. In areas with strong public transport links, lower parking ratios may be appropriate. However, planning authorities must also ensure that parking provision is sufficient to meet the specific needs of future residents of a proposed development and taking into account the local context. This is a very important part of my reply to the Senator. Each individual circumstance needs to be taken into account. When the planning authorities are granting planning permission they need to ensure there is adequate parking space available there, taking into account that in many instances cars will be the most appropriate, or in some instances the only available mechanism of transport for people.

I thank the Minister. I think there is an awful lot of messing going on with parking. I refer back to the car parking spaces that have been in situ for 50 years in Tallaght village. They want to remove them. Recently up in Marlfield a management company tried to impose parking charges for people who had car parking spaces outside their houses. This is absolutely unacceptable and ridiculous carry on. If there is a call five minutes down the road for additional car parking, there should not be a removal of car parking in that vicinity. I acknowledge the wording of support and encouragement but the word I am feeling is "forced". I have to call it the way I see it. I appreciate the Minister's response and I acknowledge the high standard of housing that is being delivered. The apartments are fabulous but it is a pity that this car parking issue, which was flagged, has happened. I really hope to see a resolution and will fight tooth and nail for it.

One thing I did not respond to earlier was the issue the Senator has just raised at the beginning of her second contribution, which is about removing car parking spaces from our streets. It is important to note that under the local government Acts and the Road Traffic Act, the responsibility for making by-laws rests with local authorities. They are responsible for the control, management and regulation of the on-street parking of vehicles. Obviously local authorities must be very careful about the fact that they do not want to be removing on-street car parking spaces and just making life more unmanageable for people who need cars to come in to shop or to deliver their kids to school and so on.

The Department of Transport provided further guidance within the design manual for urban roads and streets. It outlines a range of parking options as part of a package of traffic-calming measures. This includes parking solutions that, when combined with graduation and maximum standards, will support more efficient parking layouts.

I thank Senator Costello for raising this important issue. I will certainly be passing on to the Minister, Deputy Browne, and to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, the issues of concern the Senator has raised.

Before we continue with Commencement matters, I want to welcome the group from St. Mary's in Dunmanway in Cork. You are all very welcome and I hope you are enjoying your day. They are guests of Deputy Holly Cairns. The tradition when you visit the Seanad is that you do not get homework for the rest of the week. Enjoy your trip.

They will be back next week as well so.

As the Minister of State has said, you will be back every week now doing a tour of the Dáil and the Seanad.

I think the Acting Chairman is exceeding his powers there and the Cathaoirleach might have something to say on that.

I welcome the opportunity for the Minister of State to make a statement on the extension of the upper age limit for drivers of small public service vehicles contracted under the school transport scheme. Like so many Members of this House, I welcome the recent decision to extend the upper age limit for certain school transport drivers from 70 to 72 years of age. It is a practical recognition of the valuable contribution made by many experienced and medically fit drivers across the country. At a time when driver shortages have placed enormous pressure on school transport services, particularly in rural Ireland, this move is certainly positive.

While the measure is welcome, it does not reflect the realities of special educational needs school transport. The extension applies only to vehicles under 3,500 kg and up to eight-seaters, which effectively are the people carriers, SUVs and big cars. Crucially, it excludes the 16-seat minibuses operated under the D1 licence category, the very vehicle most commonly used to transport children with additional needs. These minibuses are not a luxury. They are an essential part of the special educational needs transport system. They are specifically used because they allow adequate space between children, many of whom have complex additional needs and in some cases behavioural difficulties, who require a calm, safe and controlled environment.

I was contacted on this by Councillor John Reilly in Louth who currently drives a minibus transporting six autistic children to early intervention classes daily. He has also spoken from personal experience on this as the father of a 26-year-old son with severe autism who has depended on school transport services for many years. Councillor Reilly's testimony highlights the reality faced by families and he understands both sides of this issue as a parent and as a driver. He sees at first hand how vital these services are, how carefully they operate, and how dependent the children are on continuity, routine and familiar drivers.

Yet, under the current rules, an experienced and medically fit driver may continue to transport children in a smaller vehicle but cannot continue to drive the D1 minibus that is essential to SEN transport. This is the problem with this policy. There is already a shortage of school transport drivers, especially part-time drivers. We know that SEN transport demand is increasing year on year at the moment. Excluding D1 licence holders from this extension risks worsening recruitment and retention difficulties and could lead to further disruption for vulnerable children and their families.

For many children with autism or complex needs, consistency matters enormously. A familiar driver, a predictable journey and a calm environment are not minor issues. They are central to the child's well-being and ability to access education. There is a balanced and sensible approach available to us all. The Minister should consider extending the operating to medically fit D1 licenceholders operating school transport minibuses for children with additional needs, subject of course to appropriate safeguarding, medical certification and regular review. This would help to retain experienced drivers, support families and provide much needed stability within the SEN transport system. Crucially, it would recognise the practical realities on the ground rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

I ask the Minister to engage urgently with operators, families and representatives in the special education needs sector to examine how this gap can be addressed. Our priority must always be to ensure that children with additional needs can access education safely, reliably and with dignity.

I thank Senator Scahill. I have been asked by the Minister of State with responsibility for school transport, Deputy Michael Moynihan, to take this matter on his behalf this morning. He apologises that he is not available to do so himself. I certainly will relay the conversation back and the discussion that we have on it here this morning and the particular point the Senator is making in relation to those who drive buses for special education students in terms of that particular challenge, which is not included so far. I will relay that back following on from the discussion this morning. Now, I will lay out the position from the Department in terms of the official response here from the Department of Education and Youth, which is responsible for the school transport scheme. It is managed by Bus Éireann on behalf of the Department. The scheme is operated using a mix of Bus Éireann-owned vehicles and directly recruited drivers and private contractors that recruit their own drivers to operate the scheme. In the current school year, more than 181,000 children are transported daily to primary, post-primary and special schools throughout the country. Included in this figure are close to 25,000 children travelling on the school transport scheme for children with special educational needs.

The retirement age for school bus drivers has been set by Bus Éireann at 70 years of age, which also applies to all Bus Éireann road passenger services. Under the programme for Government a commitment was made to "Carry out an independent assessment on the feasibility of removing the exclusion of drivers aged over 70 from the School Transport Scheme". The Department of Education and Youth engaged with Bus Éireann and the Department of Transport on this matter. The Road Safety Authority, under the remit of the Department of Transport, committed to reviewing the upper age limit of drivers as it relates to larger vehicles and school buses. This review is now complete. Bus Éireann has no plans to amend the driver age limit for larger vehicles.

To consider fully all vehicles, Bus Éireann secured independent external consultants to undertake an independent analysis of the safety considerations, criteria and feasibility of raising the maximum driving age of drivers of small public service vehicles contracted to deliver school transport services under the school transport scheme. The review of the upper age limit of drivers as it relates to smaller vehicles has now been completed. Following this review, Bus Éireann has advised of an extension to the upper age limit of drivers from the age of 70 to 72, for a trial period. This extension will apply to drivers of small public service vehicles, which have a maximum of eight seats and a driver, who are contracted by Bus Éireann under the school transport scheme. Bus Éireann further advises that this decision follows extensive research, stakeholder engagement and a thorough safety review undertaken by Bus Éireann. The trial period for this extension of the driver age limit is for two years, beginning from the start of the new school year in September 2026 and ending at the conclusion of the 2027-28 school year in June 2028. Under the revised policy, enhanced safety measures will be implemented whereby drivers over 70 years of age are required to undertake an additional six-month medical fitness assessment. Contractor compliance with conditions associated with the change to this policy will be monitored by Bus Éireann for the duration of the trial. Bus Éireann advises that this policy change will remain under continuous review throughout the two-year trial period, with a further evaluation conducted at its conclusion to determine whether the extended age limit should be maintained or discontinued.

I thank the Minister of State. I spoke with the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan, last night, who will give me a more direct answer on this matter. I have always found him very approachable on this issue. I am happy to work with him on it. Like myself, the Minister of State is from a rural area. He sees the school transport to and from schools on a daily basis. These eight-seaters will not meet the demand for SEN transport. Capacity for wheelchairs is severely limited in these smaller vehicles. I must commend Councillor John Reilly on coming up with this practical idea from lived experience both as a driver and as a parent using the service. We are talking about 16-seater transit vans, not massive minibuses, but the opportunity and capacity that would open up for SEN students to get to and from schools is something that needs to be addressed. I look forward to working with the Minister of State on that.

I have no doubt but that the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan, will be glad to continue to engage on the matter. The Senator has put the argument very constructively here. He has also outlined the specific case of Councillor Reilly, as a bus driver in County Louth. There has been movement here as can be seen, in regard to the smaller public service vehicles. That is a step forward. I have seen this issue raised on a number of occasions. There is significant validity to the safety considerations that have to be paramount in relation to any adjustments to them. We have seen that pilot adjustment from age 70 to 72. That will be closely assessed and monitored. The Senator makes the point that there should be larger eligibility than the current pilot allows. No doubt the Senator and the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan, will explore this in more detail. I will certainly relay back the nature of the discussion here today.