Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as a chuid ama a roinnt liom. Tá dhá nóiméad agam. I raise the urgent access to the drug givinostat for children-----
Saincheisteanna Tráthúla - Topical Issue Debate
Medicinal Products
Yes. I want to raise the urgent issue of access to the drug givinostat for children living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, as it is commonly known. Givinostat was approved by the European Medicines Agency last June. Nearly a year has passed, the HSE is still reviewing whether it is going to cover the cost of this drug for children and adults across the State. What makes the delays around givinostat's availability particularly distressing - and I am sure the Minister of State knows this - is that it is only available to children who still have mobility. These children are in a race against time, and their parents are looking on as the HSE and the Government drags their feet while their children are seriously at risk of not being able to have the life-changing support offered by this drug.
Matters are particularly urgent for young Aaron Langan. Aaron is a nine-year-old from Laghey in my county, Donegal. His family are fearful that if Aaron's mobility is further impacted by this condition that he will not be able to have this life-changing drug, even if the HSE approves its reimbursement. Aaron's mother and father were here in the Dáil last year campaigning and pleading with Government to get its act together to allow them access to this lifesaving drug. At that time, Aaron was walking. Today, he is in a wheelchair. As a result, the issue of mobility is absolutely crucial.
This drug is not just a life game-changer for Aaron. Young Diarmuid O'Sullivan from Donegal is another example. Diarmuid is ten years of age. His older brother Nathan was on a trial in Britain. Nathan is now an adult who is able to avail of this drug and have a fulfilled life, yet Diarmuid, who is ten, is not able to have it. Imagine the distress of a parent knowing that one child has the drug that changes your life and the other child is denied it because the HSE and the Government have not got their act together. I ask the Government for a compassionate intervention to allow these drugs be made available to children who are in a race against time.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important issue. My colleague Deputy Doherty has outlined how it is affecting two families in Donegal. The European Medicines Agency has approved this drug for DMD last year. Now, together with, I am sure, all colleagues in the House, I am anxious that the Department would exert pressure on the HSE to make this drug available to these children. An example of the success of this drug is that Nathan O'Sullivan, who Deputy Doherty mentioned, has been on this drug for a number of years. His mother took him to the UK. He took part in the trial relating to the drug. The trial was extremely successful, and his life has been prolonged. He leads a full life. He works with the local GAA club as a statistician and has his own car. We would like to think that his brother Diarmuid and the Langan family would have the opportunity of obtaining this drug as well.
We know the cost of it can seem rather high but we cannot put a cost on the life of a child. They are suffering and the families are suffering. The mental torture for families with this condition is 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year as they care for their children. There are about 100 or so in the country. It is incumbent on the Minister, the HSE and the Department to ensure that this drug is made available as soon as possible. There is a question of being ambulatory. They have to be able to move when they start the drug so the clock is ticking. It is vitally important that a positive decision is taken as soon as possible and that the drugs are made available.
I would also say to the drug company involved, which is making exorbitant profits, that it should reduce the prices and work with the Department and the HSE to make the drug available sooner rather than later.
I thank Deputies Gallagher and Doherty for raising this matter. I will be answering on behalf of the Minister for Health, Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill.
As stated, Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a rare and progressive disease affecting the muscle strength and function of boys almost exclusively, with approximately ten children diagnosed with the condition each year. The Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, has engaged with representative groups and the parents of children suffering from this condition several times over the past year. The Minister has followed progress closely and will be meeting with patient groups again this week. The Government is committed to providing timely access to new and innovative medicines and has made considerable investments in recent years, with annual expenditure on medicines now approaching €4 billion.
To move completely to givinostat, it is sold under the brand name Duzyvat, for the treatment of DMD in ambulant patients aged six years or older. It has recently undergone assessment by the European Medicines Agency, EMA. The European Commission granted conditional marketing authorisation for use of givinostat in this indication on 6 June 2025. The Health Service Executive has statutory responsibility for decisions on pricing and reimbursement of medicines, in accordance with the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013. In line with the Act, a company must submit an application to the HSE to have a new medicine added to the formal reimbursement list. Reimbursement is for licensed indications that have been granted marketing authorisation by the EMA or Ireland’s Health Products Regulatory Authority.
This is the importance piece. The Minister met with her Italian counterpart at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, EPSCO, meeting in June 2025 in Luxembourg to ask him to encourage the company, Italfarmaco, to submit a timely pricing and reimbursement application to Ireland. On 6 August 2025, an application for reimbursement was received by the HSE and underwent a rapid review by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics.
Following the conclusion of a rapid review on 14 August 2025, a full health technology assessment, HTA, was commissioned by the HSE on 26 August. The assessment of the pricing and reimbursement application for givinostat could not proceed until the NCPE received the HTA from the company almost four months later, on the 15 January 2026. I need to set out the timelines clearly. The HTA has been completed and confidential commercial negotiations between the HSE’s corporate pharmaceutical unit and Italfarmaco have begun, with the receipt of a commercial offer from Italfarmaco on Friday, 8 May, which was last Friday. The HSE continues to engage with the applicant to progress this application in a timely manner. To be clear, the conclusion of the rapid of review was on 14 August. A full health technology assessment was commissioned by the HSE. The assessment of the pricing and reimbursement application for givinostat could not proceed until the NCPE received a full HTA from the company. That arrived on 15 January this year. The HTA has been completed now and confidential commercial negotiations are under way. A commercial offer was received from the company last Friday.
I thank the Deputy for sharing the stories of the two families who will want to understand exactly where the hold-ups are.
With respect, that does not cut it for these families. These parents are looking at their children in a race against time. The case of Diarmuid is an example. His mother said that Diarmuid's brother, Nathan, has the same condition. Nathan has had access to the drug through a UK trial for more than ten years but Diarmuid is approaching the age where he is likely to lose mobility. She asked me to imagine being a mother opening the fridge every day to give her eldest boy this life-changing medicine and not giving it to her other little boy. She asked me to imagine the turmoil that causes her day after day. She said she met the Minister for Health and a promise was made to allow compassionate access that would be fast-tracked for her child. She says time is not on her side. The case of Aaron, a young boy of nine years of age, is the same. He was walking when people were pleading with the Government last year and now he is in a wheelchair, not knowing, even if the drug is approved, whether he will be able to access it. This is not good enough.
Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.
I am a parent of four young boys. I would go through a wall for them. The Government has to allow compassionate access to these drugs immediately.
What is difficult to understand is that givinostat is available in most EU countries. Whatever is going to be decided now must be fast-tracked. The Minister of State referred to the receipt of a commercial offer on Friday, 8 May. In the next few weeks, a decision must be taken. The ironic thing about this is that Aaron's family lives in Laghy, close to the Border and the O'Sullivan family lives in Ballybofey, close to the Border. The children on the other side of the Border, in Fermanagh, Tyrone or wherever are availing of this. It is vital that there is no discrimination as far as these children are concerned. We are pleading with the Minister of State and with the Minister, who is pragmatic - we have had dealings with her about issues in Donegal. I hope a decision can be taken soon. The question of finance should not be an issue. I am calling on all concerned, including the drug company, the HSE and the Department, to ensure these children can avail of this treatment as soon as possible.
Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.
Sorry Chair, time is ticking. It is an important issue.
I thank the two Deputies. It is important we understand that negotiations are under way. There is a system and process in place and simply saying that does not cut it from a political perspective is not at all logical.
There are children all over Ireland who need this drug. The Minister recognises that. There is a process in place. Italfarmaco, the pharmaceutical company, came with a proposal last Friday and the confidential commercial negotiations are under way. Today is Wednesday. The reason there was a delay between January and now is that the NCPE did not received the full HTA from the company until 15 January. It took four months. I do not know why these delays have happened but there are children who need this drug and I agree with the Deputies that it should not be the situation that a child living in Donegal does not have access and a child living five miles down the road does. We understand that but it could not be clearer. The application relating to the commercial negotiations was received last Friday and it is currently getting the best attention. I will speak to the Minister again later today about this. She knows the two Deputies are raising it. She was not in a position to be here today.
The HSE cannot comment on the possible outcomes of the ongoing process, as the Deputies will understand, because of the confidential nature of it. I understand what they said about compassion but I also agree with Deputy Gallagher that the pharmaceutical companies need to come to the table as well. I answered a similar question here last week about Friedreich's Ataxia. It is important now that the negotiations are under way and that we get a positive result.
Water Services
Ar an gcéad dul síos, gabhaim buíochas leis an Cheann Comhairle as cabhrú leis an Topical seo. I also thank the people who travelled here last week and who have been fighting this campaign in the interest of the community and common sense for more than a decade now. I thank Councillors Seamus Morris and Phyll Bugler, Emma Kennedy who has done massive work on this, anglers and others who came here last week, and the community activists and ordinary concerned citizens who are exposing the madness of this project. The proposed eastern and midlands water supply project seeks to abstract 300 million to 330 million litres per day from the River Shannon at Parteen Basin and transfer it to the Dublin eastern region. While securing a resilient water supply for Dublin is a legitimate national objective, the current proposal raises serious legal, environmental, financial and governance issues. None of us are anti-Dublin but we want common sense.
The project may breach international environmental laws, especially the water framework directive and habitats directive. Environmental impacts have been misrepresented through reliance on average flow statistics. This will lead to severe impacts during drought conditions. Better alternatives, including addressing leakage in Dublin - which everyone talks about - and groundwater development, have not been properly evaluated. The project externalises environmental risk to the Shannon catchment, while primarily benefiting Dublin. That is totally discriminatory. The environmental assessment does not exclude adverse impacts on protected habitats and species under EU law. The EU forbids those. In its current form, the project exposes the State to significant legal risk, ecological damage and long-term policy inconsistency and that must be looked at as well.
The 2% claim is misleading. The project documentation repeatedly states that the abstraction represents approximately 2% of the Shannon's average flow. This statistic is misleading and scientifically untrue. Ecological impacts are determined by flow conditions, not long-term averages. Evidence presented in submissions shows that during dry summer flows, extraction could remove 25% to 30% of available flow and during extreme drought conditions, which we experience pretty often in Ireland, it could remove up to 38% to 40% of available flow. This is not a marginal intervention by any measure. The wool is being pulled over people's eyes. It is not acceptable to say the abstraction is 2%. The environmental law it will breach is the water framework directive. The EU law provides that member states prevent deterioration of water bodies. The Shannon system is already classified with a below good status in several stretches. The application does not demonstrate with certainty that a deterioration will not occur. If deterioration cannot be excluded, the project must pass the strict Article 4(7) derogation test by showing overriding public interest, no better environmental alternatives and all mitigation measures implemented. It is failing in all those important areas.
Regarding the habitats directive, we have been told about how it affects anybody who looks for planning permission at home for anything. We have to look at all those issues. Why would we allow Uisce Éireann do what it likes? It has a blank cheque. We are going to have the national children's hospital No. 2? It used to be a small amount of money but now we are talking about between €3 billion and €10 billion to put two big pipes up through the middle of the country when it is totally unnecessary. Fix the leaks in Dublin, use common sense and save the water. This is treated water and up to 40% of it is being leaked on a daily basis.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. There is a critical need for a new water source for Dublin, the east and the midlands. Currently, the River Liffey supplies 85% of the water requirements for 1.7 million people in Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. By relying so heavily on one river, there is no alternative if there is a contamination or weather event and no backup if equipment failure affects supply.
The project will provide Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow with a resilient, safe and secure water supply. It will also provide infrastructure with the capacity for future offtakes to serve communities along the route in Tipperary, Offaly and Westmeath. The current cost estimate is €4.6 billion to €6 billion and construction of the project is scheduled to commence in 2028, with Uisce Éireann aiming to complete the project by 2032, subject to planning and other statutory approvals.
It is important to note that the project will abstract a maximum of 2% of the average flow of the River Shannon at the Parteen Basin downstream of Lough Derg. The water levels at Lough Derg and the Parteen Basin will remain in the control of the ESB and the abstraction will not affect the normal operating water levels.
Uisce Éireann’s modelling shows that the abstraction is sustainable, will have a neutral effect on water quality and will make no visible day-to-day difference for any water users. Extensive preparation and studies have been undertaken and Uisce Éireann will continue to monitor the project during and after its construction. The potential environmental impacts of the project are being considered as part of the statutory planning process and will ultimately form part of the determination to be made by An Coimisiún Pleanála. This includes an extensive public consultation. As part of the planning application for the project submitted last December, a 30,000-page environmental impact assessment report, EIAR, was submitted by Uisce Éireann. The EIAR includes details of any likely significant environmental effects that may arise and the proposed mitigation measures that are being put in place. All of this is being considered as part of the planning application process for the project and I would also note that the EIAR and other planning documents have been published by Uisce Éireann.
On the lands required for the project, Uisce Éireann has engaged extensively with the main farming organisations - the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, ICMSA - and an agreement has been reached on a standard agricultural wayleave package with both landowner representative organisations. I am pleased to note that around 81% of landowners have already signed up to this compensation package and Uisce Éireann is continuing its community engagement efforts.
Uisce Éireann’s community engagement clinics are continuing throughout 2026 and a dedicated community liaison officer is working with the local communities along the route. The Government is committed to getting this vital infrastructure built as quickly as possible and will continue to support Uisce Éireann to deliver it.
The same thing is happening. I think it was Albert Einstein who said that doing same thing over and over again and expecting a different result was a form of insanity. Uisce Éireann is obviously out of control. We all know that from dealing with it on a regular basis. The Minister of State believes this. Its arrogance is typified by the statement that 81% of farmers have signed up to a project that does not have planning permission or an abstraction licence. Imagine that. Hundreds of millions of euro paid out, along with a 25% payment, to those landowners. I criticised the IFA and ICMSA for doing those kinds of seedy deal before the planning permission for the project had even been granted. This is what goes on in this country. What about the hundreds of landowners who have not signed up and do not want this going through their lands? Many others might not want it either but they are being forced to by so-called representative bodies. We are leaving the people behind. Have we learned nothing from the protests in recent weeks?
I could go into a lot of stuff here. The habitats directive has been totally overridden. The Shannon system is already ecologically stressed. There are alternatives that have not been examined. It is insane to pump treated water from Parteen Basin into Dublin just to leak up to 40% of it into the ground. We ought to remember what leaks back in when the pressure goes down or there are bursts - the filth and dirt that seeps back in to the people of Dublin in the water they are getting. We are told that we are going to store the water in the pipe for a month during different drought periods. What kind of water are we going to have? This is insane but it is just a typical example of Uisce Éireann's arrogance. It will not deal with anybody properly. It just throws money at the problem and the Government throws money at Uisce Éireann. Councillors Séamie Morrison and Phyll Bugler, Ms Emma Kennedy, the team here last week and all the others who are opposed to this - not for any selfish reasons, but for the sake of the ecology, the River Shannon, the region and sanity - are not going to go away easily because it is riddled with mistakes. There will be judicial reviews and God knows what else, and it will fall down all over the place because it is based on a tissue of false information instead of proper statistics.
It is important to restate why we need the project. Currently, the water supply in the eastern and midlands region faces a number of serious challenges. A single source - the River Liffey - supplies 85% of the water requirements for 1.7 million people in the greater Dublin area. This dependency on the Liffey results in a serious vulnerability to risks such as prolonged drought and-or contamination, not just for Dublin, but for the whole of the eastern and midlands region. With forecasts showing that the region will need 34% more water by the year 2044 than is available today, this situation is not sustainable.
The project will address these challenges and provide a secure water supply for housing development and economic growth across eastern and midlands region. The project works in tandem with ongoing leakage reduction efforts. Uisce Éireann is investing over €2 billion in leakage reduction under the revised national development plan. Fixing leaks is, of course, essential but it is only part of the solution. Fixing leaks alone will not meet the needs of the region nor will it address the issue of over-reliance on the River Liffey. A new sustainable source of water is required alongside continued leakage reduction.
The project went for planning permission in December last year and construction is hoped to commence in 2028, subject to planning permission being granted and not challenged via litigation, so Uisce Éireann is hoping to complete the project by 2032. The project will work in tandem with Uisce Éireann's other major project, namely, the greater Dublin drainage project. Uisce Éireann will continue to work to accelerate the delivery of this vital infrastructure and this process has already been greatly aided by reforms that the Government has made as part of implementing the accelerating infrastructure report.
Public Consultation Process
I raise an issue that communities all over the country can relate to, namely, proper community engagement. These are three very important words. We hear the phrase all the time. It is in development plans, policy documents and Government reports. Developers talk about it while councils and other State bodies say they are doing it. It even came up in two Oireachtas reports that I worked on this week. However, what does "community engagement" really mean and does it actually make any difference? Many communities feel that the answer is "No" because there are no proper standards to judge whether engagement was real and meaningful or whether it was just a public meeting followed by a report that backed a decision that was already made. This is not real community engagement. It just looks like community engagement, and people can see through that.
There are already some good examples of how proper engagement can be delivered. They involve people being generally included, consultations happening early enough to influence decisions and public feedback actually being listened to. These are not radical ideas. They are basic common sense, but the problem is they are voluntary.
As we all know, in planning voluntary rules mean nothing. When a community in east or west Clare is being consulted about a wind turbine project that will affect its area for years to come, it deserves to know the process meets a proper recognised standard, not whatever the developer decides is good enough for the area.
My ask is simple. Will the Government consider introducing a national legal standard for community engagement in planning, policy decisions and grant funding? Will projects have to show that engagement was meaningful before planning permission or final approval is granted? Right now, we are spending public money on consultation that communities do not trust, reports they do not believe in and decisions they feel they have no real say in. That is not good planning and it damages trust between people and the State. We do not need to start from the beginning. There are already good examples that could help create an Irish standard but we need the political will to make it a requirement instead of just a nice idea.
I thank Deputy Cooney for raising what is a very important matter and giving us the opportunity to update the House.
Stakeholder public engagement is one of the most important principles underlining the planning system, with the need for engagement with local communities being of particular importance to enable every citizen to have their say in how their area grows and develops over time. Under the Planning and Development Act 2024, planning authorities are required to consult State agencies, prescribed authorities and members of the public when preparing development plans and determining planning applications. These legal requirements ensure that planning decisions are transparent, sustainable and consistent with national and regional policy objectives. The Planning and Development Act 2024 strengthens the emphasis on a plan-led approach to development, with co-ordinated planning and collaboration between public bodies to identify future requirements for schools, healthcare facilities, transport systems and utilities before major developments are approved.
Importantly, the planning process is not limited to institutional consultation alone. Public and community engagement is a core principle underpinning the 2024 Act. Members of the public, community organisations, environmental groups, business interests and other stakeholders have an important role in shaping the future development of their areas.
Public participation requirements ensure that communities are given opportunities to engage during the preparation of development plans, local area plans and planning schemes, including in relation to the zoning of land for different purposes. Statutory public consultation periods and engagement initiatives undertaken by planning authorities in developing these plans help to promote accountability and democratic transparency within the planning system, recognising that such plans ultimately guide and inform decision-making on planning applications.
The reforms introduced by the Planning and Development Act 2024 seek to create a more coherent, efficient and accessible planning system while preserving strong safeguards for democratic participation and inter-agency co-ordination.
I thank the Minister of State. Every one of us in this House knows of a local project, very often an energy project, in respect of which communities were angry about how developers engaged with them, or about whether they engaged with them at all. Instead of constantly dealing with these disputes, should we not create a clear set of standards that every public and private body must follow, whether it involves a major infrastructure project, a Department policy, the allocation of public funding or a county development plan? This is not about giving communities a veto; it is about making sure that when a project is to have a major impact on people's lives, engagement happens early enough to shape it before all the important decisions are made.
If we want climate projects, roads and housing developments to proceed more quickly and with less public opposition, we need proper national standards that every developer must follow before applying for planning permission. At present, too many communities feel that consultation begins only after the real decisions have already been taken. That damages trust from the very start and can cause much avoidable concern in communities. It is my intention to bring forward a Private Members' Bill to create national statutory standards for community engagement that all public bodies and private developers will have to follow. I hope the Minister of State will support it.
Again, I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue.
The Planning and Development Act 2024 recognises that strong and sustainable communities are best supported through meaningful public participation in local development planning and decision-making. Effective planning is not solely about technical assessments or infrastructure co-ordination; it is also about ensuring communities have a genuine opportunity to shape the future of the places in which they live, work and raise their families.
The Act strengthens the importance of engagement at all stages of the planning process, from the preparation of development plans and local area plans to consultation on individual planning applications and broader regeneration initiatives. Early and constructive consultation with residents, community groups, voluntary groups and local stakeholders, including local businesses, helps to improve transparency and build public awareness. As the provisions of the 2024 Act are commenced, meaningful community participation will remain a central element of a modern, democratic and plan-led system that seeks to deliver sustainable development and an improved quality of life for communities across Ireland.
Defence Forces
I thank the Minister of State for being here this morning. The Government, including the Minister for Defence, has clearly stated its intention to increase the strength of the Defence Forces, which is badly needed and very welcome. At the end of 2025, there were 7,756 personnel in our Defence Forces, an increase of 200 on the previous 12 months. It is great to see that trajectory. In response to a recent parliamentary question I submitted, the Minister stated her intention to increase the strength of the Defence Forces by 850 in 2026. Again, that is very welcome.
We all know the importance of the Defence Forces and of ensuring they are fully resourced. They play a critical role in our national security. We are renowned internationally for our peacekeeping role. Every branch of the Defence Forces, such as the Air Corps, plays a critical role in many operations, such as humanitarian operations. In this regard, I want to particularly mention the essential role of the Naval Service, whose headquarters are based close to my own constituency in Cork, in our maritime security, which is receiving increasing attention given the importance of protecting our sub-sea utilities and infrastructure. We all agree we need to increase the strength of our Defence Forces.
I want to outline this morning a troubling communication I received from an individual who applied to join the Defence Forces and the difficulties they encountered in that regard over the past nine months or so. They applied initially in July of 2025, took an aptitude test in August and a fitness test in November but nine months on that individual has still not heard whether they will be allowed to join. This is not consistent with the thinking of a Government that says it is a top priority to increase the strength of our Defence Forces. We need an efficient and fair recruitment process that encourages individuals to apply and ensures they are communicated with and updated on their application status.
This is very concerning and we need to show our genuine commitment to strengthening the Defence Forces. Hearing about situations like this where individuals are facing these kinds of difficulties in the application process, this needs to be reviewed urgently. Why would somebody put themselves through that? We have individuals in this country who are absolutely determined to have a career in the Defence Forces and, of course, they will stay the course, but there are others who may be marginally considering a career and if we have a recruitment process that does not stand up to scrutiny, is not transparent or efficient, does not keep them informed and is not user-friendly, we will not achieve the numbers we should for recruitment to the Defence Forces.
I put it to the Minister of State that this needs to be reviewed. It has taken far too long from the date of application to the point of induction into the Defence Forces. As I said, if this is a genuine commitment of this Government, which I believe it is, we need to review this system urgently so that we put a recruitment process in place that will genuinely achieve the kind of numbers we want and which our Defence Forces and citizens deserve as regards the strength of the overall force.
I thank Senator McGrath for raising this important matter and for giving me the opportunity to reply. I begin by reiterating the Government's strong commitment to boosting recruitment to and supporting the retention of personnel in the Defence Forces. Military authorities have advised that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,778 as of 31 March, the latest date for which this figure is available. Last year saw an increase in the overall strength of the Permanent Defence Force by almost 200 personnel, which was facilitated by the achievement of a total of 790 inductions during 2025, the highest figure in 20 years. We want to build on the growth achieved in 2025 and have set a target of 850 inductions to the Permanent Defence Force for 2026. The total number of applications for careers in the Permanent Defence Force exceeded 16,500, and more than 7,000 were received by the end of March of this year. Increases in application numbers and the overall strength of the Permanent Defence Force demonstrate that the key enabling measures which the Government has introduced to support and drive Defence Forces recruitment and retention are yielding positive results.
On the specific matter of the recruitment process for the Defence Forces, the military authorities have advised that the process of candidates being recruited to the Permanent Defence Force comprises several stages, which include shortlisting, psychometric assessments, fitness and interview, medical, Garda vetting and security clearance, offer and attestation. It should be noted that some candidates may be subject to fewer or additional stages of the process, depending on the specific competition for which they have applied, but the majority of candidates follow the process as outlined.
A new candidate management system, Resumo, was introduced in December, making the process easier for applicants. Candidates now receive automated correspondence at all stages of the process to maximize engagement and ensure they are kept informed of the status of their application. My written reply contains a list of overall average times of progression by stage for all general service recruitment candidates who applied in quarter 1 of 2026. The Deputy has it there in the reply, so I do not need to go through the table. It gives the average number of days for each stage of the process.
The military authorities have informed me that the security clearance process can take anything from six weeks to nine months for candidates, depending on a variety of factors, such as their previous country or countries of residence, how many addresses they have lived at, prior interactions with police or security services and the speed at which foreign authorities respond to requests, to name just some of the complexities.
Recruitment to the Defence Forces remains open and ongoing via a wide range of pathways, including general service recruitment, re-entry schemes and multiple direct entry competitions for specialist roles. A range of new recruitment competition streams have successfully launched in recent years and include new competitions for air traffic controller cadetships, aircraft maintenance technicians, grooms in the Equitation School and dental nurses. Additional new competitions for chefs, communications and information services or cyber roles, medical officers and aircraft maintenance technicians have all launched in recent weeks. The 2026 cadetship competitions closed in March, with over 2,800 applications received.
The key enabling measures include increases in the maximum ages of recruitment and retirement respectively, the extension of private and secondary healthcare to all personnel, and the application of the provisions of the working time directive across the Defence Forces, subject to certain exemptions. I can come back and finish that later.
I thank the Minister of State for outlining the facts. To reiterate, the increase in personnel in the Defence Forces is very welcome, with 780 inductions in 2025. That brought an overall net increase of 200 in the Defence Forces complement, which is welcome. The intention to have 850 inductions this year is also very welcome.
However, I repeat what I said earlier about the importance of having a fair and user-friendly application process in place. When you look at the stages of that process outlined in the reply, from the shortlisting to the psychometric testing and so on, it appears as if it is reasonable up to the point of the vetting. It takes maybe three months to get to the point of vetting and, from there on, there can be a delay of anything up to nine months. That is the area on which I ask for some focus. Of course, I understand the importance of vetting, but I do not see why it should take nine months to carry out that vetting process. I accept that nine months is at the upper end but, at the same time, that is probably the period where people feel the process is letting them down and where they are not receiving any communication, updates or contact.
People have alternatives in life. Thankfully, we are a country with high standards of education and people have alternative careers; we have a strong economy. If we genuinely want to encourage people into our Defence Forces, we have to have a system in place that works for them, is user-friendly and efficient and brings them from the point of application to the point of induction as quickly as possible. We all know the importance of ensuring we meet our targets, as a Government, in increasing the number personnel.
The issue of vetting in particular is one that needs to be reviewed, and I ask the Minister of State to convey that message back to the Minister for Defence, Deputy McEntee.
To conclude on some of the key enabling measures that we have introduced for recruitment and retention, we have also increased the patrol duty allowance payable to Naval Service personnel at sea, which has been doubled after ten days at sea in a calendar year. We have seen the extension of the Naval Service tax credit for a further five years, the extension of the service commitment scheme for pilots in the Air Corps and air traffic control personnel, and we have seen engagement of external expertise to support recruitment in the Naval Service. To support recruitment and the implementation of related measures, budget 2026 has provided a record allocation of €1.49 billion to the defence sector, an increase of €145 million over 2025.
I hear what the Deputy is saying about vetting but, whether it is with the Defence Forces, people who are applying to An Garda Síochána or those applying for citizenship, the timelines for some parts of vetting are outside of our control. As I said, if people have lived at multiple addresses or in multiple countries, awaiting replies and clearance on vetting from other jurisdictions outside our control can sometimes lead to delays which, unfortunately, we cannot control.
Defence Forces
There is a lot of talk at the minute and a shared desire across all sides of this House to ensure we invest in our Defence Forces. The Defence Forces have been profoundly neglected and that needs to be addressed. As far as I am concerned, Ireland should be strong in neutrality and strong in defence; both things go together.
We hear a lot of big announcements from the Minister but, unfortunately, the reality is that big talk is not going to put feet inside the barracks door. Referring back to the last debate the Minister of State had on the various targets being set and Government's desire to hit those targets, the reality is there is not a hope in the wide earthly world that the Defence Forces will meet the target of 11,000 permanent personnel by 2028. That is under level of ambition 2. It is not going to be reached. At the minute, we are almost 4,000 personnel short of that. There is not a hope that this gap will be made up. We will be lucky to reach the established strength of 9,400. We will be extremely lucky to hit that target.
There is not a hope we are reaching 11,000. The reality is that for all the big announcements and so on, the ultimate test of whether we are going to be able to recruit and retain enough personnel is whether we are showing enough respect for the greatest asset of the Defence Forces, that is, the men and women of the Defence Forces. Against the backdrop of these big announcements, the European Committee on Social Rights has found that the Irish Government is in breach of the European Social Charter because of failing to implement the working time directive. The central point of that is that the Irish Government is refusing still to define what the working day is and what it means in terms of hours and duties. It keeps telling us this is complex but it has been dealing with it for years. If you refuse to define what the working day is, that has obvious implications for ensuring that overtime is counted, recorded and paid. We can go through the findings of the European social committee in relation to this, which found against the Irish Government. There are serious issues in respect of rest periods, ensuring that men and women in the Defence Forces get the daily rest period they are entitled to, that the average working time including overtime is not meant to exceed 48 hours, as well as various other issues. This is ultimately leading to Defence Forces personnel not getting enough payment for the work they are doing. They are being underpaid for their overtime.
There are also very simple things that could be resolved in respect of when people are in barracks and on rest periods. Basic things such as gym equipment, TV subscriptions and Wi-Fi are meant to be in place in all of these 24-hour duty locations. They are simple things that the Government could easily resolve at very limited cost. These items need to be addressed. There has been some progress on the implementation of the working time directive, but until the working day is defined, until we get to grips with that, and the Government has been dealing with it for over three years, we are still going to have issues of people being underpaid and their overtime not being recognised. This is leading to Defence Forces personnel not feeling valued. They are working in challenging circumstances, with very lengthy periods of work and lengthy and onerous periods of duty. If they are not shown the respect they ought to be in ensuring this is properly compensated, this will contribute to the recruitment and retention crisis that continues in the Defence Forces.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter. The Minister for Defence is at the annual PDFORRA delegate conference today.
Bringing the Defence Forces within the remit of the Organisation of Working Time Act has been a key issue for the Defence Forces representative associations for a number of years. The inclusion of the Defence Forces under the Organisation of Working Time Act required careful consideration and extensive consultation in getting here and recognises the unique nature of the work carried out by our Defence Forces members. A particular consideration was of course those military activities which, due to their nature, continue to be exempt from the Act. As the Deputy will be aware, it is over 12 months now since the blanket exemption from the Organisation of Working Time Act for Defence Forces personnel was removed in January 2025, and the majority of Defence Forces personnel now enjoy the protections of the Act, including daily and weekly rest and maximum weekly working time over a 17-week period.
I have mentioned that, due to their specific nature, a number of military activities continue to be exempted from the provisions of the working time directive. However, it is important to point out that a number of health and safety protections for those involved in such tasks have been agreed, including prescribed compensatory rest periods, which are now incorporated into Defence Forces regulation. This body of work is rightly seen as a significant step forward in the extensive transformational journey already well under way in the Defence Forces. A range of additional health and safety measures were also agreed, with a number of them already implemented, including the provision of one return commercial home-reunion flight to Ireland in respect of an operational tour of duty of six months, where the security assessment by the military authorities determines that the individual cannot avail of leave in-theatre. In addition, enhanced Wi-Fi services in UNIFIL have been put in place.
Upon the removal of the blanket exemption last year, the Chief of Staff was clear in communicating the responsibilities of Defence Forces management on the implementation of all aspects of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 across the entire Defence Forces. This included ensuring that commanding officers are fully aware of their management responsibilities with regard to both activities coming within the scope of the directive, and for those activities which are exempt. Military management is continuing to progress the implementation of a number of remaining health and safety protections and a Defence Forces working group has been convened for this purpose. Some of those measures requiring additional funding beyond existing resources are to be addressed in line with the normal Estimates process.
The military authorities have advised that in the intervening months, numerous briefings have been undertaken across the Defence Forces in addition to the availability of an instructional video. In addition, an instruction document from the Chief of Staff providing guidance to commanders and their personnel on all aspects of the implementation process, coupled with the Defence Forces' non-financial labour budget system, which is now in place, both provide important management tools in ensuring that the provisions of the directive are correctly applied. The Defence Forces are also leading on the development and implementation of a permanent electronic time and attendance system which is expected to be in place later this year. In the meantime, an interim time and attendance system has been put in place.
I am assured that all necessary measures are being taken to ensure the protections of the working time directive are implemented fully on the ground. In that context, the working time directive subcommittee through the conciliation and arbitration scheme continues to meet on a regular basis. Using this forum, any issues which have arisen which pertain to the practical implementation on the ground of the protections set out in the directive have been brought to the attention of the Defence Forces management.
The Minister of State will be aware that the Defences Forces are a significant part of the life of Cork city. I believe it is similar in his own county. Many personnel are stationed in Haulbowline, Collins Barracks and even in Kilworth in Liam Lynch camp. When I talk to people in the Defence Forces, they see a huge discrepancy and a gap between the kind of ambition that the Minister talks about and the manner in which the Defence Forces operate. They say the same that I have said, that the men and women of the Defence Forces are the greatest asset the Defence Forces have. They see a huge gap between that rhetoric and the reality on the ground. There are some positive elements in the Minister of State's response but it still does not really nail down that key issue. When are we going to get a clear definition of the working day? How are we going to ensure that overtime is properly paid? If people are going to leave their families and their responsibilities at home, and be on campus for 24 hours or more, they deserve to properly compensated. They deserve that respect. That is what they would get in other jobs. They recognise that this is not the same as any other job. Of course there will be extenuating circumstances. However, there has to be a definition for what is appropriate overtime and how that is paid. Those issues in terms of on-campus are easy fixes. None of them are very expensive.
I also want to briefly raise an issue that has come out of the PDFORRA conference. We wish the delegates the best in their deliberations and I am looking forward to attending later this evening. More than 6,000 personnel are waiting to be paid €3.7 million under claims under local bargaining agreements. Those are agreements already made, reached and owed. The Department of Defence and the Defence Forces are backing the personnel in relation to this. Some senior technicians are owed up to €5,000 each. About 6,000 personnel are down money because the Department of public expenditure has refused to honour agreements that are already made. In the same vein and out of respect for the Defence Forces, will the Minister of State raise the need to release those funds with the Department of public expenditure?
I thank the Deputy for raising the issues he has raised. I am sure the Minister, Chief of Staff and management of the Defence Forces are following this discussion very closely. Any of the outstanding issues which the Deputy has raised and indeed any of the issues which will be raised at today's delegate conference will receive maximum attention over the coming weeks and months.
Will you bring it back to the Department of public expenditure?
I will.