Bernard Durkan
Ceist:1. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent visit to Paris. [10816/24]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Seán Haughey
Ceist:2. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent conference on Ukraine in Paris. [14153/24]
Jim O'Callaghan
Ceist:3. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent conference in Paris on the invasion of Ukraine. [14156/24]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:4. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent visit to Paris. [15146/24]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:5. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent visit to Paris. [15149/24]
Seán Haughey
Ceist:6. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent discussions with the President of Ukraine. [16771/24]
Bernard Durkan
Ceist:7. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent conversation with President Zelenskyy. [16766/24]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
The former Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, travelled to Paris on 26 February to attend a high-level meeting on assistance to Ukraine convened by President Macron and attended by leaders and representatives from EU member states and other like-minded countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The meeting in Paris was a valuable opportunity for Ukraine's friends and allies to come together to assess Ukraine's needs, both military and civilian, and to ensure that our collective effort in support of it are as comprehensive and effective as possible.
I spoke to President Zelenskyy by phone on 10 April and reiterated Ireland's unwavering commitment to Ukraine's freedom, democracy and territorial integrity. I also said that Ireland would continue to advocate strongly for Ukraine's membership of the European Union and offered my support to President Zelenskyy's peace formula. He told me of the severe pressure that Ukraine is under as Russia continues to attack cities such as Kharkiv and vital civilian infrastructure, including energy and heat plants. He also emphasised Ukraine's wish to see formal negotiations with the EU on its future membership open under the Belgian presidency. I said that I and the Irish Government support that goal.
Following on from my conversation with President Zelenskyy, I also spoke with the Prime Minister of Ukraine yesterday. We discussed how best partners can support Ukraine with its immediate needs in terms of energy infrastructure, which has been a target of Russian missiles in recent weeks, and we looked ahead and spoke about the reconstruction of Ukraine.
At the special European Council in Brussels on 17 and 18 April, I called for these negotiations to begin as soon as possible. This is an important message to the people of Ukraine, and to President Putin, that Ukraine belongs in our European Union family.
From my meetings with European leaders during my recent visits to Brussels and Warsaw, and from discussions at the special European Council, it is clear that colleagues are very concerned about the current situation in Ukraine. It has very significant military needs if it is to prevent Russia making further advances into its territory. It also urgently needs further air defence systems to help protect cities other than Kyiv. I, therefore, welcome the recent decision in the United States to confirm further aid for Ukraine.
The agreement by the European Union in February to provide €50 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine in the period to 2027, and the decision in March to provide an additional €5 billion under the European Peace Facility, EPF, are both important sources of our continuing support and a signal of our commitment to continuing to stand with Ukraine. Ireland's share under the EPF uplift amounts to more than €125 million. We will continue providing non-lethal assistance to Ukraine, including in areas where we have expertise, such as demining and cyber. It was clear from my conversation yesterday with the Prime Minister of Ukraine that Ukraine sees enormous value in the work Ireland is carrying out in demining. We need to ensure that we provide Ukraine with what it needs in that area as urgently as possible.
Unfortunately, Ukraine’s demining needs will be considerable for the foreseeable future. The Defence Forces have already delivered a number of training modules, including in demining and combat casualty care, together with EU partners.
I call Deputy Durkan.
I do not have the relevant sheet in front of me. I have all the other sheets.
We will come back to the Deputy in a moment.
I was interested to hear the details of the Taoiseach's phone conversation with President Zelenskyy and with the Prime Minister of Ukraine, as he has outlined. As we know, the Russian offensive is continuing and Ukraine is under pressure. The EU is providing financial, humanitarian, emergency, budgetary and military support to Ukraine. Ireland is also giving bilateral support through stabilisation and humanitarian mechanisms.
I welcome the recent agreement by the EU to provide an extra €5 billion for Ukraine under the European Peace Facility. For Ireland, this will amount to around €128 million, having regard to our gross national income. Of course, this will involve non-lethal military support in our case. The EU must continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. The future security and defence of Europe depends on it, and I suspect that is what President Macron had in mind when he organised the conference in Paris.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about EU sanctions imposed on Russia to date. He did not mention that in his reply. The EU sanctions envoy, David O'Sullivan, is examining the circumvention of sanctions via third countries in order to prevent battlefield goods and technology assisting the Russian war effort. Has the Taoiseach been updated on this process? How is David O'Sullivan getting on with this task? My question is basically on the sanctions, how they are working and what more needs to be done in that regard.
The meeting in Paris in February commemorated the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I am sure the Taoiseach's predecessor, who attended it on our behalf, and the other leaders of the EU were fairly consistent in their desire to ensure that there was continued support for Ukraine. Obviously, from this country's point of view, we are limited in what we can do with regard to our military neutrality. However, when you look at our representation in the EU, we do have an important voice.
One other thing that stands out about the response of Europe to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was the fact that Europe agreed to freeze Russian assets in the European Union. When we look at the amount and quantity of assets that have been frozen, it really does reflect and illustrate how much money has been taken from the Russian people and put offshore. At present, there is approximately €190 billion of Russian assets that have been frozen and held in the Belgian depository of Euroclear. That is generating approximately €3 billion per annum. I would have thought it would be a sensible political outcome if the EU leaders decided that the interest - I am not even talking about the capital - could be used in the future to help Ukraine reconstruct its economy and rebuild buildings that were devastated by Russian aggression. That is a line the Taoiseach and Ireland should pursue in order to ensure that there is some financial and economic support for Ukraine. Without financial and economic support, it will not survive.
Is the Taoiseach taking the people of this country for fools when he suggests that his plan to dismantle the triple lock is not a full attack on Ireland's neutrality? Whenever he attempts to justify this move he is planning on the triple lock, he refers to Russia. Of course, we all condemn Russia's attack on Ukraine as an indefensible occupation and military aggression. However, at the same time, the Taoiseach wants us to move closer to a military alliance and EU militarisation project that includes NATO, the United States, Germany and Britain, the countries that are arming a genocide in Gaza and which continue to sustain Israel's ability to commit the most horrific crimes. These are taking place on an ongoing basis but, somehow, that is different and in a different category. The Taoiseach does not mention them. In fact, he is trying to drag us closer to military involvement with an EU project of militarisation aligned to NATO and dominated by those powers. It is dominated by powers that are willing to not just do nothing about Israel's genocide in Gaza but which are actually arming that genocide and protecting the regime carrying it out. Why the double standards? Is that not the evidence that the Government is actually getting rid of neutrality and aligning us with one camp in a very dangerous escalation of military competition across the world?
The Government has been engaged in a war on what is left of neutrality since Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It has slightly changed tack in the course of that. It started out with a full-frontal attack, saying we need to have a discussion about neutrality, that it was a policy matter and it could be changed at any time. It met the reality of public opinion, which did not shift despite a significant offensive in the media. Instead, the Government has repackaged it, with neutrality to be left without any content whatsoever and with the triple lock to be removed. Deputy Micheál Martin was correct in 2013 when he said that the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality. He was also correct when he described the attempt to undermine it as "an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael". Unfortunately, he has now adopted that obsession.
If the triple lock was gone tomorrow, what military missions does the Taoiseach want to send troops on that he cannot currently send them on? The Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, said he wants to do it all within the UN Charter. That means it would be authorised by the UN Security Council. What missions can the Government not currently send troops on that it wants to send troops on? In my opinion - and I will listen to the answer - it will be EU-led missions without UN Security Council approval, that is, outside of international law, and US or NATO-led missions, that is, the likes of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
To what extent has the Taoiseach gleaned the conclusion that current measures taken against the Russian invasion of a fellow nation have been effective so far? Are they sufficiently progressive to ensure or bring about a change of mind in respect of the attitude of the Russians? Was there a general consensus that there needed to be a change in emphasis or a different approach in order to deal with the situation?
The Taoiseach will accept that across Europe and the European Union, there is movement in the direction of security and defence co-operation. We have seen that Ursula von der Leyen is very concerned about making sure there is an EU-wide military-industrial complex. That is the only way I can put it. We have seen how destabilised the world is, right across Africa and the Middle East. While that involves the Russians and Chinese, it also involves the Americans, the European powers and, strangely enough, the Brits. I fail to see how further integration into their plans and a move away from where the Irish people stand on neutrality are going to bring us to a better place. We need to maintain our protection of our neutrality and independence, as has been shown with regard to the Palestinian issue. Is there any information regarding a timeline for the recognition of the state of Palestine? I would also like to see further movement on the divestment of State money from illegal settlements.
I thank the Deputies. There were quite a few questions there. I realise that in questions to the Taoiseach, we stray a lot from the actual questions.
On Deputy Haughey's question regarding sanctions, Ireland welcomed the adoption of the European Union's 13th sanctions package against Russia on 23 February to coincide with the two-year anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Discussions on a 14th package are ongoing. Ireland will continue to support measures to effectively implement sanctions but also to try to combat circumvention, to which the Deputy alluded, particularly to limit Russia's access to sensitive items and battlefield goods. Ireland welcomed the agreement reached at EU level in February to set aside the revenue generated from Russia's immobilised sovereign assets to support Ukraine, and we have been actively engaging in discussions as to how this revenue can now be transferred and used.
This brings me to Deputy O'Callaghan's question. His point is exactly mine. It is the position of the Government and, I believe, the European Council that the interest earned on - or the windfall element, if you wish - of the immobilised Russian assets should be used by and given to the Government of Ukraine. There has been a lot of work done on this under the Belgian Presidency of the European Council, and I am hopeful of progress on that situation, potentially this summer.
On the issue of the triple lock, which is not really covered in these questions, we should be very clear. Nobody here has seen the legislative proposals yet. It is really important, before we start to demonise each other or put each other in ideological camps, that we have an opportunity to debate and consider the outcomes of the consultative forum on international security policy in June 2023. I know some people did not wish to see that happen, and others-----
I could have written the conclusions in advance.
Fair play to the Deputy.
They were pretty obvious.
A number of people contributed to that very important discussion on security and defence and they deserve to be heard. The issue of the triple lock came up at that forum and it highlighted the need to revisit triple lock requirements. As such, one of the key outcomes of the forum was the need for a new process to replace the current system underpinning the deployment of Irish troops abroad, which effectively allows UN Security Council members to bind Ireland's hands in international engagement through the exercise of a veto or indeed the threat of same. Anyone who watches the operation of the UN Security Council knows that the threat of a veto can often be enough to stymie the mandate of a peacekeeping operation.
Any legislative proposals we bring forward in this House will continue to require Government and Dáil approval for the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel to take part in peacekeeping. Ireland’s traditional position on military neutrality will not change. This is characterised by Ireland’s non-participation in any military alliance or any common or mutual defence agreements. Making the changes proposed will simply remove the veto power of the Security Council members over Ireland’s international engagement. We will also try to address some other issues too. I may not have time to go into all of them but there will be plenty of time for the House to consider proposals. However, for example, when we go to provide security support to Irish embassies abroad, it is important that we are able to provide that support and the deployment of military personnel overseas for this purpose was not deemed to be covered under current legislation. That is a challenge the Government faces. I know we are united in all wanting to support our diplomats and embassies abroad. Equally, there is an issue around the number of troops which can be deployed. Currently, the deployment overseas of an armed Defence Forces contingent greater than 12 triggers the triple lock. If you look at a number of the traditional peacekeeping activities this country is involved in, however, including the UNDOF and UNIFIL missions, often the platoon size can be 30 and can even rise to 50. There are a number of issues we need to tease out in this regard.
As they are UN-authorised, they meet the triple lock.
But the number at the moment is 12.
They meet the triple lock. They achieve the triple lock.
I am pointing out-----
We are out of time and we cannot starting having a cross-Chamber conversation about these matters.
We will have plenty of time to debate these proposals.
Can I say to the Members that they should ask questions? It is supposed to be questions and not statements. If a Member's question or statement goes on so long then he or she cannot blame the Taoiseach if he does not have time to answer.
An Garda Síochána
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:8. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on the work of the policing reform implementation programme office in his Department. [11792/24]
James Lawless
Ceist:9. Deputy James Lawless asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on the work of the policing reform implementation programme office in his Department. [14090/24]
Jim O'Callaghan
Ceist:10. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on the work of the policing reform implementation programme office in his Department. [14093/24]
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Ceist:11. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on the work of the policing reform implementation programme office in his Department. [15166/24]
Mick Barry
Ceist:12. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on the work of the policing reform implementation programme office in his Department. [18015/24]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive, together.
A Policing Service for the Future is the Government’s plan to implement the report of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. The implementation of the plan has been overseen by a dedicated programme office in the Department of the Taoiseach and an implementation group on policing reform, chaired by an independent person.
The final phase of the plan is expected to conclude later this year in line with the enhanced governance and accountability framework laid out in the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act, which is expected to come into effect this summer. A significant focus of the implementation plan has been concerned with strengthening the internal capabilities of An Garda Síochána in order that the organisation possesses the capacity to drive future reform.
Under the new governance and accountability framework, a non-executive Garda board will be established to help this process and will be complemented by external agencies such as the policing and community safety authority and the reconstituted police ombudsman.
Given that the Report on the Commission of the Future of Policing in Ireland called for greater clarity and coherence in terms of police governance, it will be important to ensure that future governance is as streamlined and clear as possible. This would help to continue the reform process, which has already achieved significant progress including: progressing the operating model for An Garda Síochána, which will enable a more visible, responsive and localised policing service to communities nationwide; the full roll-out of the model in 11 divisions with the remaining ten divisions expected to come on stream later this year; and the conclusion of the three pilot local community safety partnerships in Dublin’s north inner city, Waterford city and county and County Longford which will inform the national roll-out of these arrangements in 2024. Moreover, the Garda workforce was larger at the end of 2023 than at any year before 2019 and recent recruitment has been strong following the Government decision to increase the entry age limit to apply to become a Garda trainee from 35 years to 50 years. There also has been distribution of nearly 15,600 digital communication devices, thereby enabling front-line gardaí to perform their duties without returning to stations, implementation of new human rights structures, strategies and training across the organisation and the introduction of a three-year Garda health and well-being strategy, which recognises the stresses a garda can face and provides assistance to deal with them.
There also has been progress on legislative reform. The landmark Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 provides for the most wide-ranging and coherent reform of policing in a generation. The Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act, which concerns the use of recording devices, including body-worn cameras, was signed into law by the President on 5 December 2023 and I believe we will start to see the roll-out of body cameras from next month. In June 2023, the Cabinet approved the drafting of a general scheme for a new Garda Bill on facial recognition technology. This new Bill will deal with the concerns raised on facial recognition technology when it was previously debated in the House. The Garda Síochána (powers) Bill will combine and modernise police powers of search, arrest and detention. In addition, the Garda Síochána (Functions and Operational Areas) Act came into law in 2022 to underpin the new Garda operating model. These achievements represent only some of the wide range of actions completed or being progressed.
The implementation group on policing reform is currently focused on concluding the final phase of the reform programme and the arrangements for ensuring the smooth transition to the new statutory governance and oversight arrangements.
That was a long reply, so we have one minute per person. There are a lot of speakers.
I will be brief. No reform programme on earth will be of any value when there is such low morale in the ranks of An Garda Síochána and such a crisis in public confidence. That is the legacy of Fine Gael. Thirteen years on, people the length and breadth of this State do not feel safe. With the inner city, I do not have time. I could write books on it. There has been an abject failure of policing with no feeling of safety or visibility in the communities. It is a disgrace what has happened in Dublin city. But it is not just that. On my travels into rural communities, villages and towns, to my great alarm I am hearing the same story from people on the ground. What is it? The Government shut down Garda stations. People do not see gardaí out and about in relationship and support with the community and people feel unsafe. The Taoiseach can read out all the lists of legislative changes and all of that but numbers are low; too low for the population. The Taoiseach knows all of this. It is a big fail on the part of the supposed party of law and order. Then there is the dysfunctional relationship between the Commissioner, the members of the Garda and the Minister in the middle of it. It is a mess.
I do not know how members of An Garda Síochána can keep on top of the amount of laws there at present. Sometimes we see gardaí involved in situations and ask why they are not implementing, say, section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act or as I was saying in respect of Mount Street, the Roads Act 1993. There is such a vast amount of legislation that people in this House, and, indeed, lawyers, find it hard to keep on top of it. It must be an extraordinary burden for members of An Garda Síochána. It might be worthwhile, in terms of the implementation group, were we to make members of the Garda aware of the fundamental powers that they have. They will never be aware of every statutory provision that exists in our law and they will never be aware of every common law power but we do need to provide them with some succinct details of the nature of the powers they have in order that they can respond to the situations they probably encounter more often than others. On certain occasions, they will have to seek expertise on whether an offence is being committed but in terms of large public order issues, they could be given a succinct account of what laws they can use.
What plans are there to deal with violence? I am talking about both organised violence, that is, drug dealing, drug-debt intimidation and the wholesale violence that communities have to deal with and disorganised violence. That can be the crime of chaotic families, vulnerable people who are sometimes, for want of a better term, useful idiots who are used by drug gangs. Such chaotic behaviour can really impact communities across the board. I probably spend longer talking to An Garda Síochána than any other State agency. Whether I am talking about the Garda, the council or Tusla, we do not have the supports or resources to deal with these issues. I am going from one end of the criminality spectrum to the other but we have a huge issue. There is poverty, intergenerational trauma and a huge level of drug addiction and drug crime on top of it.
There are currently delays of up to four or five months to obtain an appointment for an Irish residence permit at the Cork city immigration office at the Anglesea Street Garda station. This is causing havoc for people from outside the European Economic Area, including problems with employers and landlords and with opening bank accounts. For some, it makes it impossible to travel home for family emergencies such as the death of a parent or a serious illness of a child.
There were nearly 9,000 non-EEA nationals living in Cork city in 2022. Many of them play vital roles in the life of the city. This issue was brought to my attention by the Cork Indian nurses. The problem could be solved in several ways. More staff could be allocated for processing permits on Anglesey Street. The Cork city immigration service could be put online, as has been done in Dublin. Appointments could be provided at other immigration offices in County Cork. Will the Taoiseach ask the Minister to pay serious attention to this issue so that it can be resolved in a speedy and fair fashion?
There is a serious issue with accountability regarding deaths related to the Garda. A reply to a previous parliamentary question stated that between 2007 and 2021 there were 228 fatal incidents either in or shortly after Garda custody. They were referred to GSOC. In 2005 Terrence Wheelock went out to buy a paintbrush. He was arrested by the Garda. He was brought to Store Street Garda station. He died three months later as a result of injuries he got there. The Garda claims he hanged himself but there is considerable evidence, some of which I have previously spoken about, which suggests that is not true. The family continue to campaign for a public inquiry. Does the Taoiseach support that?
Fifteen years later in 2020 George Nkencho's family witnessed him being shot in front of them during a mental health episode. They have not even received the GSOC report into George's death. Will the Taoiseach support them in getting that report and that it should be published?
An international panel convened by the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights has just produced a report - they are in Dublin - saying that the Irish State had failed to properly investigate a series of deadly attacks by loyalist paramilitaries in Ireland in the early and mid-1970s including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. They particularly castigated the failure of the Garda and the State to produce the files on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The anniversary of those massacres is coming up on 17 May. A new documentary film in which the families have been involved will premier shortly. I met one of those family members last week. Indeed, I gave a small amount of money towards the production of film. They are still demanding the Garda files. We know Britain will not release the information. The Garda files on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings have never been furnished to the families or made public. Will the Taoiseach do something about that as we approach the anniversary of those tragic bombings?
I am very conscious of the anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings coming up. I will indeed give consideration to the issues that the Deputy has raised and will seek to be briefed on the matters in advance of the anniversary. I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for raising that.
I am reluctant to comment on the floor of the Dáil on the individual cases Deputy Paul Murphy raised. I will consider both of them and will reply to him in writing when I get an up-to-date position from the Minister for Justice on that.
Deputy Barry spoke about the Anglesey Street office and the permits. Particularly regarding the ongoing debates on migration in this country, his comments about the benefits that many of the people from outside the European Union and the EEA are making to life in Cork city and county are important. I want to be associated with those remarks. He referenced Indian nurses and we see the benefit of migration in all our communities. The point he made about the delays in accessing permits in the Anglesey Street office and the three suggestions he made about staffing, moving it online and appointments at other offices are issues I will discuss with the Minister. We will revert to the Deputy in writing to see if any assistance can be provided.
Deputy Ó Murchú highlighted the range of issues he comes across as a constituency TD in terms of the spectrum of need, some in the criminal justice space, some in the Garda space, but also some in the rehabilitation space and the Tusla space. At the heart of what we want to do with community safety partnerships is to recognise that so that in a county like Louth, we can bring together all the State agencies, local actors and local organisation to ask what we can do in our county. We plan to roll out those community safety partnerships this year.
Deputy Jim O'Callaghan made a very interesting point. I am very conscious of the level of change experienced by rank-and-file members of An Garda Síochána in a short space of time. There have been changes in structure and in law, but also change in some of the realities they face as they go about their duties. Through my Department's role on policing reform, I will certainly raise that with officials to see how we can make the reforms and strategies, which get discussed in offices far from the front line, more real and more accessible to rank and file members of An Garda Síochána.
Deputy McDonald asked about Garda morale. The best way to tackle that issue and support the Garda is to increase the garda numbers. I know she will agree with that point. We all want to increase garda numbers. We have taken a number of actions to do that. We have increased the training allowance quite significantly. We have increased the age of entry for An Garda Síochána from 35 to 50. We are increasing the retirement age also. We have seen a very strong response in the latest Garda recruitment campaign with more than 6,300 people applying to become gardaí. There is no doubt the Covid pandemic disrupted the pattern of recruitment and the pipeline through Templemore. We are beginning to see that rectify itself now. I expect 2024 to be the year in which we see a garda numbers grow which is important to urban and rural communities.
Constitutional Amendments
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:13. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [11793/24]
Mick Barry
Ceist:14. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [15405/24]
Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:15. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [17658/24]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:16. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [17960/24]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:17. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [17963/24]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 17, inclusive, together.
There are various proposals for constitutional reforms under consideration. However, no final decisions have been made on the timing. I am conscious of the limited time before which a general election will be held next year. Some of the proposed reforms arise from the programme for Government, such as housing and extending the franchise at presidential elections to Irish citizens living outside the State, while others, such as the EU agreement on a unified patent court, arise from existing legal requirements.
The establishment of the Electoral Commission has helped to streamline the conduct of referendums and provide independent oversight.
In respect of the referendum on the unified patent court, the Government has decided that more time is needed to ensure there is a full understanding of the issues at hand. Holding it in June would have meant that in Limerick, people would have ended up with four ballot papers on one day - one for a directly elected mayor, one for the European elections, one for local election and one for a referendum. The Government decided to defer that referendum. The Government and many in this House remain strongly in support of the unified patent court but the area of patents and patent law is complex and highly technical. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to take time to ensure a fuller understanding and teasing though of the issues. No final decisions have been made on the timing of other potential constitutional reforms.
I had intended to raise with the Taoiseach the issue of extending the franchise for the presidential elections because the Government has dragged its heels on that matter which is most unfortunate.
I want to return to the issue of neutrality because we need to nail this nonsense the Government is trying to peddle that somehow removing the need for a UN mandate is a minor modification of the triple lock neutrality protection and the policy of the State; it is nothing of the sort. That proposal is to fundamentally undermine and change the policy of military neutrality. As I said earlier, the Government does not have the democratic mandate to do that. It may have the numbers in here but it has not put that proposition to the people in a general election campaign or by any other method. If the Government believes this is a good idea and a worthy move, it needs to go back to the people and get their democratic sanction by means of a referendum. Anything less than that will have long-term consequences that have no purchase and no widespread public support. No amount of rhetoric or fancy footwork on the Government's part can alter that fact. The removal of the need for a UN mandate is a fundamental undermining, destruction in fact, of the Irish policy of military neutrality. That is the fact of the matter.
For the third week in a row, I raise the issue of water in Cork city. The privatisation of water has proved disastrous in the UK. Creeping privatisation is proving disastrous here now.
When Cork City Council was responsible for supplying water to households, the water, as a general rule, was clean and safe. When Uisce Éireann took over and hired a private company to design, build and operate the new Lee Road waterworks, things began to go wrong. Some €40 million later, the water is dirty and discoloured thanks to a mistake made on the watch of Uisce Éireann and that private company. Creeping privatisation of the service is proving a disaster for the people of Cork. Will the Taoiseach organise a referendum to keep our water in public ownership or will he keep the door open for further privatisation and a move towards to the UK model?
We proposed an amendment to the Planning and Development Bill that would increase the amount of social and affordable housing we get from developments. Currently, as the Taoiseach is aware, we get 10%, or more recently, we may get 10% affordable housing. That means 80% of what is being built is unaffordable. We proposed, like other places such as Austria, that we would increase it to 50% or 60%. What is the point in having lots of unaffordable housing? Why do we not get a bigger proportion? Interestingly, when I asked the Minister this - and he rejected our amendment - he said there would be constitutional restrictions on increasing the amount of social and affordable housing. Are we going to do something about that? The Government promised we would have a referendum on housing and we have heard time and time again the Government cite the current constitutional situation as a block to introducing better rent controls and now as a block to potentially increasing the amount of social and affordable housing we get. The Government promised the referendum. Will it give it to us or will it tell the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, he is wrong and accept our amendment looking to increase the amount of social and affordable housing we get from development in this country?
The programme for Government commits to a referendum on housing. The Taoiseach's predecessor, Leo Varadkar, confirmed last August that "we should have an amendment to our Constitution to establish a right to housing". The Minister for housing promised a referendum in 2023 and yet the Taoiseach has told us now that no firm decision has been made on any referendums. I suspect this Government is planning to see out the rest of its term and not allow people to vote on the right to housing. That is happening in a context of Amnesty International last week highlighting the gross human rights violations caused by the housing crisis. Last Friday, Department of housing figures showed that homelessness is at an all-time high. There are 13,866 people, including 4,147 children, in emergency accommodation. Amnesty International says there is a need for a constitutional right to housing to redirect Government policy. However, the Government is not moving on it and it is blocking our Bill to insert a right to housing into the Constitution, which passed in this Dáil because its Deputies were afraid to publicly vote against it. Instead, the Government has been privately blocking it from progressing for the past three years. We need a referendum. Will the Taoiseach commit to giving it?
I accept that Deputy McDonald's sincerely-held view is that a change to the triple lock alters military neutrality. I accept that this is her opinion; I do not accept it is a fact. We have a difference in opinion on this. I do not believe it does and neither does the Tánaiste, the Government or the consultative forum. It is entirely possible to be a country that is militarily neutral and that allows its Dáil and Government make decisions regarding peacekeeping without the need for recourse to the UN.
Outside of the UN Charter?
These would be made in line with the UN Charter but outside of recourse to the UN Security Council. There are many people in this country - and we will have this debate-----
Well then test it so.
We will have an opportunity to bring forward legislation-----
No-----
With respect-----
It should be tested by means of a referendum.
With respect to the Deputy and to everybody in this House, the legislative processes have not come forward. There will be a general scheme and an opportunity for scrutiny. I would at least ask that people see what the Government is proposing before deciding or trying to suggest it is proposing something on military neutrality which it is not. The Tánaiste has been very clear about the importance of military neutrality. I am very clear on that. I am also very clear as to Deputy Boyd Barrett's point when he said the Irish people do not wish to see military neutrality altered. We value it, as do I.
So leave it alone.
I value it as well but there are issues with the triple lock and we can tease them through. We have a difference of opinion and that is okay but it is entirely possible to bring forward legislation that respects our military neutrality and addresses the changing geopolitical situation around the triple lock, the UN Security Council and the fact that there are people and countries on the Council that should not have a veto regarding our peacekeeping missions. That is a legitimate debate to have in this House.
As for Deputy Barry's question, we have a regular exchange on the water quality in Cork. I do not say that to be flippant because I know how serious it is to the people that he raises the issue. We discussed last week the issue regarding the task force. I have asked for an update on this, considering the Deputy has been raising it, and I will keep in touch with him. It is not acceptable that people are accessing dirty or discoloured water. It is not acceptable and I hope the work of Uisce Éireann begins to make progress in this regard. I hope, by the way, that the issue relating to the water quality can be addressed without any constitutional reform. Public ownership is a core principle governing the development of our water services. We have given a commitment to holding a referendum on ownership of water services. The establishment of Uisce Éireann in public ownership is already firmly secured under the Water Services (Amendment) Act 2022 and the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has committed to bringing forward a referendum proposal on public ownership of water services for consideration by the Government. In that way, it is intended that definitive proposals, including next steps and timelines, will be considered by the Government in due course.
Regarding Deputy Boyd Barrett and his amendment and proposal on the Planning and Development Bill, obviously that can, and will continue to be, considered in the normal legislative way. However, both he and Deputy Murphy have made a point on the need for a referendum on housing. The Government has not yet considered a firm proposal in respect of this. In line with commitments in both the programme for Government and Housing for All, the Housing Commission was established in December 2021. The Housing Commission submitted its report and recommendations regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to the Minister last August. That is factually correct. There was a majority and a minority report. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is currently considering the commission's comprehensive analysis and report regarding a proposed constitutional amendment, together with next steps, and expects to bring these to Government in due course.