This Topical Issue is about the fare hikes - or the unfair hikes, as we might call them. The people who live in my constituency already had their fares jacked up. Those who get the train from Balbriggan or Skerries were taken out of the Dublin commuter zone and had their fares increased by almost €100. That was only last year. We now have a situation whereby they will be asked to pay more. They are not getting any extra services; not an additional carriage will be added. The Government was very clear about that. They will get nothing extra but will pay more for the joy of squashing onto overcrowded trains and standing at the side of the road while ghost buses do not turn up. It is not fair. Added to that, we had the NTA at the committee this morning speaking to all the Government backbenchers who, God love them, are outraged at this but prepared to do absolutely nothing about it. The NTA confirmed this will not be for additional services. The Taoiseach was quite wrong when he told me it would be for additional services. The NTA was clear there will not be additional services and that the knock-on effect of this will be fewer people getting public transport. The Government does not give people an opportunity to get public transport unless it invests in it. It is not investing in it; it is just charging people more. It is a political decision, not a decision of the NTA. The Government can reverse it and it should.
Saincheisteanna Tráthúla - Topical Issue Debate
Public Transport
People are struggling with the cost of living, including the cost of getting in and out of work and of transport generally, and we need to increase the number of people using public transport for climate reasons. The Government's response is to increase fares to make the cost-of-living situation worse for people and to reduce the number of people using public transport. The first point is self-evident: the 15% increase is a significant hit for people who use public transport, particularly working people who use it day in, day out. We now have it confirmed by the NTA - which is absolutely extraordinary - that it took this decision knowing it would reduce the number of people using the public transport system, when everybody is supposed to be committed to increasing the use of public transport to reduce congestion and to assist with climate action. How can the Minister of State justify that? It is beyond belief. It must be that the Government does not want people to use public transport.
The Tánaiste told us we would have a budget for people who get up early in the morning to go to work but not if they get up early in the morning and go out to get a bus, Luas or train. The Government is saying those people will pay more than an extra €100 per year for the privilege of being on public transport that is inadequate and overcrowded. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, they are expected to fork out over €100 more per year. The NTA acknowledges fewer people will use public transport as a result. They will still have to go to work, college and so on. How will they get there? The Government is pushing people out of public transport and into cars in the middle of a climate crisis, which is incredible. This is 100% a political choice. A different political choice is possible. The cost of undoing this and not going ahead is €70 million. In the previous budget, the Government gave over €300 million in a special tax break to Google, about €400 million in a VAT cut to apartment developers and about €700 million to the fast food giants. To reverse this cut and go in the right direction, we should reduce fares and move towards free public transport, which is what we need. People are protesting. They were outside the Dáil today at 6 p.m. They will be on the streets again on Saturday at 1 p.m. in Parnell Square to build more and more pressure on the Government to reverse this hike.
I thank the Deputies for submitting this Topical Issue, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for Transport, Deputy O'Brien.
The Minister has responsibility for policy and overall funding of public transport, but neither he nor his officials are involved in the day-to-day operation of public transport services. The NTA has statutory responsibility for securing the provision of public passenger transport services nationally, working with the public transport operators, who deliver the services and have responsibility for day-to-day operational matters. The NTA also has statutory responsibility for the regulation of fares charged to passengers in respect of public transport services provided under public service obligation, PSO, contracts. In its capacity as fare regulator, the NTA under its responsibilities within the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 made the decision to publish a new fares determination on 3 September 2026, with the revised fares taking effect from January 2027. This is a critical step in standardisation of the national fares structure and in line with the national fares strategy that was published in 2023 with the key objective of the strategy providing more equitable and consistent structure for all PSO services.
Since 2022, we have seen inflation of almost 21%, which has driven up the cost of operating subsidised public transport services with fuel, vehicle maintenance and staff costs. In the same period, public transport fares have decreased through various measures such as the 20% cost-of-living discount, the young adult card discount of 50% and the extension of free travel to children under the age of nine. This has widened the gap between what it costs to run services and the revenue fares bring in. All the while, the NTA is seeking to continue with a significant expansion and enhancement of services. There is a requirement to strike the right balance in public transport fares to enable further enhancements to the public transport network in the coming years, offer the most competitive fares to younger and student passengers and ensure value for money of the PSO subsidy to society.
Fare revenue covers approximately 38% of the cost of operating PSO services nationally, compared to a 44% European average, with the remaining costs funded by the Exchequer. While 2026 saw a substantial increase in Exchequer funding, continued inflationary pressures have increased the cost of operating public transport services, which has limited the NTA’s ability to improve services or introduce new services to the Transport for Ireland network as part of wider capital investment under the national development plan. Ireland has maintained an effective eight-year fare freeze alongside targeted affordability measures, including the young adult card, free travel for children up to nine, and the 90-minute fare. These measures compare favourably with international practice and will continue to provide substantial support to passengers in 2027.
The adjustments to fares are required to help offset the cost increases of recent years, improve fare revenue recovery and ensure the sustainability of the PSO funding. It is important to note that every euro raised through fares goes directly back into the network, supporting better reliability, frequency and capacity and the continued roll-out of BusConnects, Connecting Ireland and DART+. I have no doubt the Deputies will understand that maintaining affordable fares must be balanced with ensuring a financially sustainable transport system capable of funding service improvements, network expansion and fleet investment.
It is very brave of the Minister of State to compare us to Europe. If he wants to go down that road, it will be a shame on him and his Government - let us be honest. He said he is maintaining affordable fares. Of course he is not; he is increasing the fares. He also tells us there will be significant expansion and enhancement of services but it has been confirmed that these unfair fare hikes will just tread water. It will be the status quo. They are not for new services, so my constituents will pay more again this year for the pleasure and the privilege of being on overcrowded trains or standing on the side of the road waiting for buses that do not turn up.
This is nothing short of a disgrace and it will be resisted. We have time between now and when the fares are due to go up. This will be resisted.
Of course we need to dramatically increase the investment in public transport. We are more than in favour of this. The absence or inadequacy of public transport in many parts of the country, and particularly in rural Ireland, is an absolute disgrace. The idea it should be paid for by hiking up fares for people struggling with a cost-of-living crisis in a way that the NTA itself says will deter people from using public transport is unbelievable. It has admitted that for every 10% increase, 3% fewer people will use public transport. The Government is driving them out of public transport and into cars. How can it possibly justify this?
This Government is, in a way, in an envious position. It has the capacity, in terms of a massive budget surplus, to protect people from the cost-of-living crisis. It is probably a position that governments across the world would like to be in. The Government can protect people from the cost-of-living crisis but instead chooses to impose extra costs on people. It is quite incredible. It is a targeted attack on those people who use public transport. It makes no sense from the point of view of the cost-of-living crisis as it is going to make it worse and it makes no sense from the point of view of the climate crisis as it will make it worse. The main thing I would say is pressurise, pressurise, pressurise. Put pressure on those backbench TDs who tell you that they agree with you, and that they will raise it with their Government colleagues, to show it in terms of the position they will take on the budget if the Government does not provide the money.
I thank the three Deputies for their contributions and for raising this Topical Issue. I assure them that the Government is strongly committed to providing all citizens with reliable and realistic sustainable mobility options, and public transport plays a key role in the delivery of this goal. To support this objective, in budget 2026 the Department of Transport secured €940 million of funding for public service obligation and TFI Local Link services. This is a significant 43% uplift, an increase from €658.4 million in 2025. As I said earlier, Ireland's package of fare measures compares very favourably with many international peers. The challenge is to balance affordability for passengers with the long-term financial sustainability needed to expand and improve public transport services. The NTA has identified approximately 140 new service initiatives and capacity enhancements as part of its 2027 budget submission to the Department of Transport. Subject to the outcome of the annual Estimates process, this represents the biggest in-year and year-on-year enhancement of services for many years. The changes also represent an important step towards standardising fares nationwide in line with the national fares strategy published in 2023.
The Government and the Department of Transport, in partnership with the NTA and operators, remain fully committed to delivering a public transport system that is reliable, accessible, affordable, and capable of meeting the growing needs of communities across the country. It is, therefore, essential that the public transport system remains well funded and responsive to passenger needs and adequate fare revenue is critical to support this. Again, I thank the three Deputies for raising this matter.
Agriculture Schemes
I want to raise the issue of generational renewal and, specifically, the need for a farm succession scheme. We have been talking about the age profile of Irish farming for many years but the figures tell us that we simply have not shifted the dial. Only around 4.3% of Irish farm holders are under the age of 35 while almost 38% are over 65. This should be a concern to all of us who want to see the future of the farm family succeed.
Macra na Feirme, which represents more than 16,000 young farmers and young rural people throughout the country, has consistently highlighted this issue. Its straightforward message is that young people want to farm but access to land, finance and timely succession can remain a major barrier. In the past we have tried different approaches. We had installation aid for young farmers and we had the early retirement scheme. More recently we introduced farm succession partnerships, which provide a tax credit of up to €25,000 over five years. We have other supports, such as the young farmer scheme, complementary income support for young farmers, the national reserve and enhanced TAMS. In the past few years we have had the succession planning advice grant, which came in during Deputy McConalogue's time as Minister for agriculture. These are all valuable supports but the age profiles tell us they have not been enough collectively.
The commission on generational renewal has given us a substantial body of work and 31 recommendations. Among the proposals are the establishment of a €25,000 payment to establish a young farmer and a generational renewal payment of up to €25,000 for an older farmer transferring the farm. I appreciate that a comprehensive farm succession scheme may not be achievable in this budget but could a commitment be given that we will now design a proper farm succession scheme? We can learn from the shortcomings of the other retirement schemes and establish a clear pathway towards implementation. Ultimately the incentive has to be strong enough to encourage succession not when a farmer reaches 75 or 80 years of age but when the next generation is young enough to invest, develop the family farm and build a future on it.
I thank Deputy Dolan for raising this very important issue and for his advocacy on behalf of the agricultural sector and young farmers in particular. The challenge of generational renewal in farming is widely recognised at national and EU levels. The programme for Government prioritises supporting intergenerational farm succession. Food Vision 2030, our shared strategy for the agrifood sector, states that generational renewal in farming is critically important to ensure the future viability and social sustainability of the Irish agrifood sector and of rural Ireland. This is a clear and fundamental point on which we all agree.
There are a number of supports for generational renewal available to farmers under Ireland’s CAP strategic plan, which runs until 2027. These supports are complemented by a suite of strong national taxation measures, access to finance supports, and advisory, education and training supports. It is important that we have skilled, innovative young farmers coming into the sector to secure a viable and sustainable future for farming in the country. We recognise the need to consider whether existing supports are having the desired effect and how supports might best be configured for the future.
Of course farm succession is a complex issue and there are many factors that impact farmers' decisions. This is why the Commission on Generational Renewal in Farming was established towards the end of my term as Minister. The commission adopted an objective, evidence-based approach to examining all the factors involved and engaged closely with stakeholders. It produced a thorough analysis and made 31 recommendations across a wide range of areas, including CAP supports, pensions, taxation, access to finance, access to land, collaborative arrangements, advisory services, education and training, gender balance and the overall attractiveness of the sector. This work will ensure that Ireland has a well-researched basis to make optimal use of the policy tools available to encourage young people, who are the lifeblood of farming, into the sector. It ensures we have a comprehensive, well-considered foundation for future policy on generational renewal.
An implementation group in the Department of agriculture has considered the recommendations and progress is being monitored on an ongoing basis. Some of the recommendations may be commenced in the short term but some will be more medium term. The current CAP is fully programmed. Recommendations around CAP supports will have to be considered in the context of the next round, post 2027. This is a point Deputy Dolan made in his contribution. Some recommendations on taxation have already been implemented and more are being examined in the context of the next budget. In relation to access to finance, we have to work with the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland and liaise with finance providers on the funding requirements of young farmers. The Minister for agriculture is consulting the Minister for Social Protection on the recommendations around pensions. Discussions with Teagasc are ongoing regarding education and training and advisory services recommendations. The gender balance recommendation is being progressed through the Department's women in agriculture initiatives.
The EU Vision for Agriculture and Food identified generational renewal as a priority and this has been reflected in the proposals for a post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy.
I know that is the key focus of Deputy Dolan in terms of wanting to make real progress here. The European Commission has also presented its strategy for generational renewal in agriculture. The increased focus on generational renewal at EU level is, of course, welcome and the EU strategy comes to many of the same conclusions as our own commission.
Regarding any formal farm succession scheme, the Department and the Minister are engaging with the ten recommendations in the report around CAP supports. These will need to be considered in the context of the new round post 2027, including the new CAP regulation and the new budget, and in stakeholder consultations. However, generational renewal should not only be looked at through the lens of CAP supports. It is clear that an holistic approach is required. As noted by the Commission on Generational Renewal in Farming, this is an issue for all agrifood stakeholders to address in order to support the environmental, social and economic sustainability of farming and enhance its image as a career.
What really shocked me when I met Macra na Feirme was seeing that the numbers backed up what we were seeing on the ground. It really is important that we encourage young people to stick with the family farm. Part of that is that they need to see a future in it so that they know they will be able to take it over and invest in it for the future. What I am proposing here cannot simply be viewed as a retirement scheme for older farmers. It must be designed as a succession scheme for the entire farm family.
I thank the Minister of State for the work he did in setting up that commission on generational renewal, because that was important. To have objective, evidence-based recommendations now allows the Department a chance to chart a pathway forward. I want to see that pathway coming.
It is important to recognise that an older farmer cannot be made to feel that the State is effectively telling them to stop farming. Farming is their livelihood, but it is also their identity, their home and often a place where they have worked for generations. At the same time, we cannot have a situation where a son or daughter is seeking to take over the family farm, but they might be 35, 40 or 45 years old before they get the opportunity to take real control of the farm business. This is why I believe the commission's approach is worth pursuing. Both sides of the transfer should be provided. Meaningful establishment capital must be provided to the young farmer taking over and financial security must be provided to the farmer transferring the holding. In principle, we already recognise this by virtue of that tax credit of €25,000 over the course of five years, but we need to go further.
We should remember what happens when succession occurs earlier. A young farmer has a longer investment horizon. They can borrow and invest, improve the family holding and adopt new technology and everything that goes with it. I understand that this might not be possible in this year's budget, but it is something the Government should pursue and look at further.
I thank Deputy Dolan again for taking up the mantle in relation to this important issue, and for trying to drive it on and achieve real progress. It is a crucial issue for maximising the potential of Irish agriculture and food production on this island, and it will be driven by young people coming into the sector. That is why I set up the commission for generational renewal just about two years ago. The good work done by the many good people who were on that commission, under the chairpersonship of Aidan O'Driscoll, was foundational and important in distilling what the challenges were around generational renewal and in putting in place that evidential and policy platform to consider how we can best go forward in attracting young people into agriculture.
Many supports are already available, and we all acknowledge they need to be built on. The supports currently in place amounted to €428 million in 2024, which is significant, but we need to build on that further. I will quote Aidan O'Driscoll, who was the chair of the commission on generational renewal, in terms of his key perspective on the report and the issue. He said:
Ultimately, the really important decisions on this issue will be made around the kitchen tables in farmhouses throughout this country. The rather sterile term “generational renewal” translates on the ground into intensely personal and family decisions, which many farm families find difficult. This crucial context is also reflected in this report and addressed in our recommendations.
Those are important matters to consider as well, but the key bottom line is that agriculture has to be a sustainable livelihood for people. It is a really exciting time for Irish agriculture and so many wonderful things are happening in it in terms of the sustainability journey and that great capacity through new learning and technology and new ways of working with the environment to be really productive from a food-producing point of view, while at the same time nurturing and protecting the environment around us. That can only be driven forward by young people, and I thank Deputy Dolan for the work he is doing in seeking to drive it forward and deliver the tools and supports within the next CAP, which will see more and more young people take up that career.
Personal Injury Claims
My question relates to periodic payment orders, PPOs, specifically a long-standing commitment by the Minister for justice to implement legislation to effectively make periodic payment orders a reality for families across the country. At the moment, they are not. Every year, the State Claims Agency has to settle hundreds of medical negligence cases. A small number of those cases involve families and individuals who have catastrophic injuries, either at birth or as a consequence of a procedure that has gone very badly wrong.
Essentially, there are two options when a plaintiff is seeking compensation for those injuries. It is either in the form of a lump sum or of a periodic payment order. I think most sensible people would recognise that, in the context of a lump sum to provide for somebody's care until the end of their days, particularly for people who need 24-hour care, it is very hard to estimate how long the person is going to live and the nature of the care they will need in five, ten or 20 years. Periodic payments orders, then, are the answer, but we need to get the formula right.
Consideration of the issue goes back to 2010, which is almost two decades ago. A High Court working group made a recommendation in that year for the establishment of periodic payment orders instead of lump sums. In 2017, that legislation was passed under the civil liability Act. It was groundbreaking because it linked the payment, which was to be updated every number of years, to the harmonised index of consumer prices, HICP.
In 2019, though, there was a High Court case. The court effectively said the periodic payment orders were a dead letter because of the construction of how they were calculated. Effectively, families and individuals were running out of money because the actual cost of providing for the individual far exceeded the rate of inflation. A review was promised. There was an interdepartmental working group. It has reported and stipulated that primary legislation is needed to facilitate the Minister for justice bringing forward a change in secondary legislation. That has happened.
The critical part of it, though, is that the Minister for justice needs to bring forward secondary legislation so that periodic payment orders are based not only on the HICP but also on the annual rate of change in health workers' earnings. That is the critical aspect. I do not understand why the Government will not act on this. There are families out there like that of Margaret Best. Her son, Kenneth, was supposed to live only until he was 45. He is now 57. She ran out of money many years ago. There is also the family of Luke Miggins, who are heading into their sixth interim settlement. It is completely unacceptable that they had to go back to court every few years and arrange for a large number of assessments to take place, at a cost to the State, to get an updated payment for the care of their son. There has to be a better way.
We know what that better way is, and it is in the gift of the Minister for justice. When I asked the question last November, we were told that the secondary legislation was imminent, but we are nine months on and we are yet to see it. When will we see the necessary, vital legislative change to allow families to get on with their lives and caring for their loved ones, adult or child, with catastrophic injuries?
I thank Deputy Sherlock very much for raising this very important issue. PPOs, as the Deputy set out very clearly, are an alternative to lump sum awards as a method of paying compensation to catastrophically injured people.
Instead of receiving compensation in one tranche, as the Deputy laid out, a payment is made annually on an agreed date. The annual payment amount is calculated to meet the cost of permanent and long-term care and treatment. An indexation rate is applied to the annual payment amount to ensure the amount keeps pace with inflation.
Part 3 of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 contains amendments to the Civil Liability Act 1961, which provide that indexation of periodic payment orders will no longer be fixed solely on the consumer price index. Instead, the indexation rate for periodic payment orders will be set by regulations made by the Minister for justice with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
The amendments arise from a High Court decision on the existing indexation rate, which found that it was not an appropriate index for use with periodic payment orders, PPOs. The amendments proposed will allow greater flexibility in the setting of the indexation rate and set out the general rule that a periodic payment order will be adjusted on an annual basis by reference to an index specified under the section.
In 2024, the then Minister for justice published two reports relating to compensation payments in personal injury cases. A working group on the indexation rate for periodic payment orders was established to advise on an appropriate index following a High Court determination that the index used in primary legislation was unworkable. Its report recommended that the PPO indexation rate should be based on a combination of the harmonised index of consumer prices and the annual rate of change in nominal hourly health earnings. The amount of a yearly periodic payment payable should be based on a periodic payment order indexation rate comprising 80% of average annual rate of change in nominal hourly health earnings added to 20% of the harmonised index of consumer prices. Where a court makes a lump sum award in a personal injury case, it uses the discount rate to determine the size of the award necessary to compensate a person for future losses. The rate reflects what an award recipient would likely receive in return if the award amount were invested.
Separately, an independent expert working group was set up to advise on an appropriate discount rate for use in catastrophic injury cases. Its report recommended that the discount rate should remain unchanged from the rate set by the High Court in 2014 and subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal and plaintiffs in catastrophic injury cases should continue to be considered as having a risk-averse profile. It also recommended that an expert group should meet at a maximum of every three years to reassess the discount rate and that a trigger mechanism should be introduced to enable a review of the discount rate if there is a marked change in economic circumstances or if the rate is successfully challenged in court.
I am conscious the Minister of State relaying the reply on behalf of the Minister for justice. Any of us not living in a situation where a family member has a catastrophic injury have no real insight but from the families I have met and families I am aware of, the stress and burden they have to endure day in, day out, and the worry of not being able to provide that care are enormous. The toll it takes on families is enormous and then they are put through this arduous process every few years for an interim care order. To be frank, the reply from the Department of justice does not answer my question. My question is, when will the secondary legislation be passed?
I take a particular interest in the very large resources spent by our State is spent. It is not just about what is spent but how it is spent. The State Claims Agency spent over €109 million last year on legal fees for itself and plaintiffs. It spent about €115 million the year before. That is an enormous amount of money. That the State Claims Agency has to agree interim pay orders every few years with these families and spend the State's money doing so is outrageous. The recommendations of these reports have been with the Department of justice for two years. The Minister said last November they were imminent. What is the delay? Why are officials and the Minister not thinking about the impact on these families? Surely it is not rocket science in terms of what needs to be legislated for. It is very clear - it is the HICP and health workers' earnings. We need to see action.
While the Minister for justice cannot be here in person this evening, I will pass on the key points the Deputy has made and her strong advocacy on this important issue.
As I mentioned, a working group on the indexation rate for periodic payment orders was established to advise on an appropriate index following a High Court determination that the index used in primary legislation was unworkable. As part of a two-stage process, the primary legislation governing PPOs has been amended to allow for the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to set the rate by way of secondary legislation, as the Deputy outlined.
The Periodic Payment Orders Indexation Rate - Report of the Inter Departmental Working Group was submitted to the Minister on 26 April 2024. The Minister approved the recommendations shortly afterwards on 21 May 2024. Drafting instructions were issued to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government on 13 August 2024. Drafting of the regulations is continuing and Department officials are working closely with officials in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government and the State Claims Agency to finalise the regulations. Once this work is completed, the regulations require the consent of the Minister for Finance before they can become operational. That outlines the timeline of where it is at. I take the Deputy's point on the urgency and importance of bringing that to a conclusion to bring a more streamlined and optimal approach in how this important mechanism works. I will feed back Deputy Sherlock's clear work and advocacy on this issue to the Minister, as well as how she addressed it in the Dáil this evening.
Online Safety
I raise the topic of online safety and the regulation of social media platforms, which is a very topical issue given the EU KIDS Act, which we have been slowly learning about over the course of this week, as well as the focus on it during Ursula von der Leyen's state of the Union address just yesterday and the online safety conference run by the Minister of State's Department last week.
I will start by talking about what we are trying to make safe and what the harms are. Across my constituency, including Dundrum, Stillorgan, Foxrock and Goatstown, and across the entire country, we are being contacted as representatives by parents who are at their wits' end trying to figure out how to manage this. They are so concerned at the dangers they see. When we design solutions to regulate these tech platforms to mitigate online harms, we have to think of what those harms are to find the right solutions. The first category is mental health concerns. Primary among them is the addictive nature of these products, what it means for all of us and what it is doing to our brains. There are also issues around self-harm being promoted, eating disorders and with the newest tools on the block, chatbots, we see people brought to suicide, essentially being nurtured bit by bit toward suicidal ideation and in some cases actually carrying out the act of suicide because an automated machine advised them this was a good idea.
The second category one might talk about is disinformation. There is polarisation, riots in the streets fomented online, radicalisation in particular of young men and the massive threat to democracy posed by the disinformation that flows online particularly at election times.
The other category we need to capture is scams. Scams are insidious. They are increasing and AI is turbocharging them. They come in the form of romance scams or networking scams where relationships are built and people are drifted towards crypto scams, where they are carved out of their entire wealth and that of those around them in a clinical and almost corporate way. The solutions we come up with need to address these harms. We need to make these products safe. If they are not safe, they should not be on the market in the first place.
I referenced addiction. It is a key part of the business model. The algorithms driving social media and informing what we see on our screens are designed right now - they were not always - - to keep our eyes on the screen and they are boosted by the AI technology that underpins them.
Age assurance and bans are one thing but they will not fix everything and there are major issues with them, which can be captured in a few different strands. They are privacy, where we are required to hand over official documentation, and rights, where they essentially block from online participation people who are expected to be cut off, and online is not all bad. They do not work as we have seen in Australia and France, for example, and they leave behind this cesspit of the internet that those of us who are not subject to the ban have to deal with. Therefore, while I welcome the announcements this week and while I hope fervently that the European Union has learned from how poor the ban in Australia has been, its inefficacy, and from the French experience where the courts have now challenged the mechanism of the ban, I have major concerns about how it will wash out, what the details will be and how it will be implemented. As far as I can see so far, those categories of harm will not be addressed by those bans.
I thank Deputy Gibney for raising this and for her clear articulation of the dangers and challenges we all have to deal with in how we respond and protect young people. Online safety, and particularly the protection of young people online, is crucial to all of us and is also a whole-of-government priority.
It is timely that we are discussing this topic, given the developments at EU level which have been moving in recent times, particularly this week with President von der Leyen's address and outline of the European Commission's approach and the publication of the proposal for a new EU regulation, entitled the EU KIDS Act. The proposal addresses child safety online in two main ways. First, it will introduce a graduated approach to access to social media for children. Children under 13 will not have access to social media, with some very limited exceptions for child-friendly services. Children aged between 13 and 15 may have mini accounts, set up by parents or guardians with only age appropriate content and children over 15 may have autonomous accounts. Second, it will introduce new obligations on social media that prohibit design features such as infinite scroll and push notification during sleeping hours. The proposal will also introduce new obligations on more than just social media. It will also apply to online video games, Al companions and chatbots.
Now that the Commission’s proposal has been published, the discussions will move to the Council and the European Parliament. As online safety of children and young people is a priority for Ireland's EU Presidency, we will give priority to those negotiations. Ensuring online safety regulation is up to date and fit for purpose means that this will continue to be an evolving area. Moreover, given the breadth of online safety, it requires a variety of approaches.
The European Commission is preparing proposals to amend the audiovisual and media services directive, which are expected to include new measures on content, including harmful content. President von der Leyen also announced yesterday that a proposal for a new digital fairness Act will issue this autumn. This is due to include important new online consumer protections. As with the EU KIDS Act, the Irish Presidency will give priority to the negotiations on these safety proposals as they emerge.
We have also seen developments in the USA, where platforms have settled cases. We are clear that any improvements to child safety that can be made in other jurisdictions must be implemented in the EU, including Ireland, too. Once today’s proposals take effect, together with existing regulation, we will have secured that and even gone further.
I thank Deputy Gibney for raising it. This is something we will continue to seek to progress through the remainder of our Presidency. As we said from the outset, the Government's objective is to do this collectively, working at EU level because we believe that is the way to have the most impact on the protection of children and in the implementability of regulations
I thank the Minister of State for the response. The first issue I have with it is the focus on age. I raised today the topic of online safety, not online safety for children. I appreciate that, as legislators, we have a particular role to play in protecting people who cannot protect themselves as well as everyone else but if we only talk about blocking children and making things safe for children, we are not addressing online safety, because everyone else still has to deal with it. Let us talk about age assurance and bans. One of the groups in society that has digital literacy challenges that are unique from those of everyone else is older people. At some stage will we see bans for older people? What do we think about that in terms of the right to online participation and so on? The focus on age is wrong because it does not deal with the tools and the addictive nature of the tools. In all the things the Minister of State listed - and I appreciate the detail and I look forward to the detail coming out - algorithms are not mentioned. Yet, we are blue in the face on this side of the House telling the Government to fix the algorithms because they are the thing that will get closest to the business model.
One of the main issues with the proposals put forward by the EU is privacy. We will all have to hand over official documentation to enforce these bans and I am not assured by the methods people are talking about because people will essentially be handing over official documentation to states, private companies or third parties, all of which involve a raft of privacy issues. I could go on but the main issue I have is that there is corporate capture in Brussels and Dublin, which means all these beautiful shiny rules that are set out - these directives, proposals and ideas - have for years all promised to do the same thing, fix these issues and address online safety. Yet, they are carved out by the time they ever reach the end of the process and then they are simply not enforced.
The Government needs to take on big tech in Dublin and in Europe and we need to actually fix these issues, because nothing I heard gives me the comfort and feeling of safety we need to provide to the people who are calling me every day at their wits' end because of what their children are experiencing online, and what we are all experiencing online.
I thank the Deputy. I outlined clearly in my initial response the progress we have seen. While we all agree appropriate safeguards and rails are needed given the impact social media can have on, and the dangers it poses to, society generally, a key priority for all of us has to be the protection of young people and vulnerable people, particularly children in relation to what they are experiencing as the first generation and as they grow up. Collectively, at European level, driven by the Irish Presidency of the EU, we have seen progress on that, in the announcements this week which I outlined earlier.
There is no doubt, and as we have all seen, social media and the type of activity we have seen on it is affecting society in terms of behaviours and radicalisation of people. We all have to be open in considering how to address that and how to ensure the space is regulated in a way that serves society well. The Government is open to engaging and discussing that and trying to find an appropriate way forward. Key to that is having debates and discussions, such as the one Deputy Gibney is having today with the points she raised on the floor of the Dáil. We will continue to engage with her and across the Oireachtas on how we can address this important issue.
School Costs
Back to school costs are having an enormous impact on families. The most recent cost of education survey showed that parents are now paying almost €1,800 per year for a child in primary school and almost €3,000 per year for a child in secondary school. Even more worrying is that the number of parents taking loans to cover these costs has doubled in just one year. Parents are being crippled by the cost of school uniforms, materials and the so-called voluntary contributions, which many parents feel forced to pay and which are used to subsidise the education system because our schools are chronically underfunded.
In recent years, more and more parents have an additional cost on top of this, as many schools now require them to purchase ICT equipment, such as laptops, for their children. During the summer months, many parents contacted me outlining the significant cost they are facing because the school requires them to purchase a laptop for their child or children for the upcoming school year. Parents were in touch with me who had to pay up to €1,000 between the cost of the device and the insurance to go with it.
That has a massive impact on families who have to deal with rising costs right across the board and who are really struggling with the cost of living at the moment. One father with a child doing the leaving certificate told me that he had to pay €1,000 for his child's device. That comes on top of the €6,000 in college fees he will have to pay for his other two children, who are attending university. One mother told me she had to pay €700 for her child's device. The child is going into the leaving certificate. She has another daughter for whom she will have to purchase one in two years. She said that they were made to feel that she would be left out of class work if she did not have the laptop. Another mother told me she had two children in school for whom she had to purchase a laptop. She said that everything has now become very expensive.
Parents are not being given an option to shop around for more affordable models. In many cases, they are put under significant pressure to purchase these devices. The Government's failure to regulate this is a dereliction of its duty. The Government is insisting that devices are not needed and not mandatory but guidance without enforcement does not offer any comfort at all. The resulting growing digital divide risks creating a two-tier education system where a family's income determines whether a child can participate fully in learning. That is completely unacceptable. If the Government is serious about reducing back-to-school costs and about equality of access, it must properly fund schools' digital infrastructure and stop expecting families to bridge that gap. Expecting parents to pay up to €1,000 on top of all of the other back-to-school costs simply will not cut it. I ask the Minister of State to outline how the Government is going to address this problem and ensure that families do not continue to struggle every year as the return to school comes around, particularly in respect of the cost of these digital devices.
I thank Deputy O'Hara for raising this matter. I am answering on behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth, Deputy Hildegarde Naughton. At the outset, I will state that there is no requirement for any student to have a personal device in school. On 25 May this year, the Minister for Education and Youth communicated directly with all schools and boards of management to set out the Department's position that there is no requirement for a personal device for junior cycle or the leaving certificate. The Minister requested schools to be cognisant of the view of all parents in relation to the use of digital devices and the associated costs and set out the need for schools to engage with all parents, and not just the parents' association, before deciding on an approach regarding devices.
As the Deputy will no doubt be aware, under the Education Act, the boards of management of schools have responsibility for the day-to-day management of those schools. Decisions regarding the use and deployment of digital technology in schools is therefore a matter for the board of management of each school in the context of its digital learning planning. Schools, in consultation with all parents, are responsible for decisions on the use of digital technology, including tablet devices, laptops and learning platforms, and how best to manage their integration into classroom practice, reflective of their own context and requirements. As mentioned, schools have been advised to consult with members of the school community, including parents, when planning for the introduction of digital technologies, including devices, with cost and other implications being fully considered by the boards of management before a decision is made.
Government is keenly aware of the challenges faced by educators and parents in relation to the cost of digital technology, including tablets. The Department continues to work to help support schools and families meet these costs as part of an overall ongoing commitment to reduce financial pressure on families and to ensure students are supported to succeed. To support ICT in schools, €200 million was allocated under the digital strategy for schools, with the most recent tranche of €35 million issuing in January of this year. Schools have flexibility to use their ICT grants to meet local priorities, including infrastructure, maintenance and device provision, within available resources.
The digital strategy for schools to 2027 does not mandate or prescribe the use of any particular devices or technologies in teaching and learning. It is concerned with the deeper embedding of digital technologies in education to develop digital literacy and competency and critical thinking and to enhance collaborative learning. It is not merely about replacing physical textbooks and resources with digital versions accessed via a digital device.
The Department commissioned OECD research on the impact of digital technologies on student learning and this was published in September last year. This research highlights that access to digital devices alone does not guarantee improved learning outcomes and that their successful use depends on thoughtful pedagogical alignment and teacher and student digital competencies.
The Minister will continue to engage with education stakeholders on this matter but it is worth nothing that the ultimate decision on the deployment of technology in schools remains with the school and its board of management. Each school is best placed to determine how best technology can support teaching and learning in its own context.
We all recognise that digital education has an important role to play but it has to be fair and equitable. The Minister of State mentioned that the Minister has communicated with schools. She wrote a letter to schools about the use of digital devices. That is not good enough because it has not made any meaningful difference. As I said earlier, guidance without enforcement simply has not worked. There needs to be a review of the roll-out of these devices. We need to ensure there is a consistent approach and supports for schools. I do not understand why that has not happened.
Telling schools to avail of the ICT fund is a cop-out because the Government has cut €15 million from ICT grants for schools, with the total down to €35 million. You cannot cut the fund and then tell schools to rely on it to provide these devices. It is completely unfair that the cost is being heaped onto parents. There need to be supports for families who are struggling to pay and an overall review of the roll-out of the devices. The Government should restore the funding for ICT and provide proper support for schools for digital devices so that no child will be disadvantaged because they cannot afford expensive technology. Otherwise, we are going to continue seeing parents being put under pressure and a growing digital divide both between schools and within schools and classrooms, where some children will have a device and some children will not, with those children being made to feel left out.
These are enormous costs. A sum of €1,000 for a device is not affordable to families. The Government should know that. It should be acting on this. You cannot continue to put this burden on families because families are at breaking point when it comes to rising costs right across the board, particularly when children are going back to school. I ask that the Minister for education and the Government as a whole finally get a handle on this and start to treat it seriously.
I thank Deputy O'Hara. There is real recognition from the Government of the pressures on families at back-to-school time. That is why we put a number of supports in place each year, such as the back-to-school allowance. It is also why the Government engages with boards of management in schools to make sure that those costs are fully considered at school level and are managed. In the Minister's communication to schools and boards of management this year, she emphasised the importance of minimising that cost burden on students and their families where digital devices are used as part of school life. She requested that school authorities have regard to a number of key principles. The guidance also reflects the established departmental approach to the general management of school-related costs, which was set out in Circular 32/2017 and Circular 65/2010. This guidance is intended to support boards of management in making decisions that promote affordability, equity and value for money.
A number of measures are in place to support educators and parents as part of the Department of education's ongoing commitment to reducing financial pressure on families and ensuring that every student is supported. These measures include an instruction from the Department to schools to consult with parents and the school community on ensuring that costs are reasonable for parents and how to avoid costs acting as a barrier. For example, where possible, generic rather than branded items should be specified.
The Deputy raises an important issue. It is one the Government and schools always need to be cognisant of. It is important that we all collectively work together to make sure that the real cost burden families face in relation to school costs is managed as best as possible while ensuring that students have what they need to have the best possible and optimal education. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter today. I will certainly pass his feedback and the key points he has raised on to the Minister for education.