Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Mar 2025

Vol. 1064 No. 1

Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions

Deputy Pearse Doherty

Tá sé iontach contúirteach agus gearr-radharcach deireadh a chur leis an nglas triarach, an triple lock. Is é seo an chéad chéim ag Fianna Fáil agus ag Fine Gael chun deireadh a chur le neodracht mhíleata na tíre seo. Beartas fadbhunaithe agus rathúil le blianta fada don tír seo é agus ní hé seo an t-am le dul leis an slua agus leis an slua a leanúint. Is é seo an t-am le fanacht lenár bprionsabail.

This morning, the Government took the first dangerous steps in dismantling the triple lock. The proposal brought to Cabinet by the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, paves the way for the deployment of Irish troops overseas without the mandate of the United Nations. This move represents a thin edge of the wedge in abandoning Ireland's long-standing policy of neutrality. It opens the door for future governments having absolute discretion to deploy Irish troops to all kinds of missions, whether major international conflicts, legally questionable peacekeeping missions or dangerous misadventures.

It comes on the same day that the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced a dramatic ramping-up in the militarisation of Europe to spend a colossal €800 billion on re-arming the European Union. The powers that be in the EU are cynically using the suffering and plight of the Ukrainian people to advance this dangerous agenda. It completely smashes the EU fiscal rules. These rules cannot be broken for spending for the social good, housing, healthcare or responding to our climate crisis, but they can be completely thrown out the window when it comes to spending on weapons. That says it all.

It is against this backdrop that the Taoiseach moves to unravel the triple lock. He has attempted to frame this move as a response to today's changing world but this has been on the cards for a very long time. Dismantling Ireland's neutrality has been the aim of the Taoiseach's partners in government for nearly 25 years. In 2003, Enda Kenny stated, "Like it or not, Ireland is no longer neutral and this is crunch time." That was when Fine Gael was launching its document, Beyond Neutrality. It called for a move away from neutrality. Today, Fine Gael calls the tune and now Fianna Fáil dances along.

Irish neutrality is based on a clear-sighted analysis of what role Ireland can best serve in the world. Removing the triple lock undermines the strong diplomatic influence Ireland has established over many generations. It is a standing achieved not through military might or military alliance, but by way of a respected tradition of military neutrality and on the insistence of international law.

Neutrality is the foundation upon which Ireland champions engagement, diplomacy, the primacy of human rights and the prevention and resolution of conflict through dialogue. Generations of Irish peacekeepers have built a proud reputation for their contribution to peacekeeping missions while wearing the blue helmet of the UN. The Irish people see the importance of our neutrality. They value it, they cherish it, and rightly so. It has stood us in good stead. If we needed confirmation, polls this weekend confirmed that neutrality commands the overwhelming support of the Irish people. There is absolutely no public appetite for a change in policy, yet the Government proposes to dismantle the triple lock, which is a key protection for neutrality. It cannot upend decades of successful Irish foreign policy without consulting the Irish people. If the Taoiseach is so confident in his position of dismantling the triple lock and Irish neutrality, why not put it to the people? Let us ask the people in a referendum whether they cherish neutrality. Let the people decide.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

Ní aontaím in aon chor leis an Teachta. Go háirithe, níl aon bhaint ag an gcinneadh seo atá tógtha ag an Rialtas lenár bpolasaithe i dtaobh ár neodracht mhíleata. Níl aon bhaint aige leis in aon chor. Tá sé in am dúinn an triple lock a chur ar leataobh agus as seo amach, nuair a bheidh an reachtaíocht imithe tríd an Dáil, beimid i gceannas maidir leis an gcinneadh atá á dhéanamh againn ó thaobh ár saighdiúirí.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. He will be aware that in my previous capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and for Defence, I brought a memo to the Government in April last year indicating and identifying the need for legislation, and instructing my officials to draft such legislation, to replace the triple lock. He will also recall that I established a very effective national consultative forum on international security policy and foreign policy, which his party opposed. I could never comprehend why it was so opposed to a basic debate on fairly fundamental issues. What emerged from the consultative forum is that the triple lock had nothing to do with the perception of Ireland on the international stage as being an honest broker and a country that looks at issues through the lens of international humanitarian law, which we do. Generally, all the contributors, and they were diverse, made the point that Ireland has been very active on the global situation, uses the multilateral institutions very effectively and also that we are generous in terms of our work through Irish Aid and through development policy, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and other locations. Generally speaking, it has been an active conduct of foreign policy that has earned Ireland strong credentials. We need to get rid of some of the mythology surrounding all of this that sometimes gets articulated by the Deputy's party and others.

In respect of the triple lock, it is very clear to us that in an exercise of sovereignty, it should be the Oireachtas that decides primarily the peacekeeping missions that we send our military to, not Russia or any other member of the Security Council. Russia should not have a veto. China should not have a veto. The US should not have a veto over where we send our soldiers in the pursuit of peace. It is as simple as that. When we were on the Security Council some years back, there were many challenges in terms, for example, of our attempts to keep humanitarian corridors open. In terms of north-west Syria and the humanitarian corridor to Tigray in Ethiopia, Ireland fought very hard to keep those corridors open. When we sought a resolution linking climate and security, for example, at the Security Council, we made enormous progress in endeavouring to get such a resolution passed. Guess what? It was vetoed at the end of the day by Russia.

This is about us exercising our own sovereignty in respect of participation in peacekeeping missions. The geopolitical situation has changed very dramatically. We have no intention to abandon our policy of military non-alignment. We are not a member of NATO. We are militarily neutral. We have never been politically neutral. Deputy Doherty may have been but the State has never been politically neutral.

We are a member of the European Union. We have been part of common security and defence in the European Union from the very beginning; we never opted out.

In respect of President von der Leyen's contribution today, it is important to read it. There is a fundamental and profound challenge facing Europe now. We cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore that reality, and it will need increased military expenditure. There is no question but it will, across Europe and, indeed, here.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

At least Fine Gael is honest about its intentions. It has been for over 20 years. When it produced its document, Beyond Neutrality, in its effort to dismantle neutrality, the Taoiseach described it as an out-of-touch ideological obsession. Fine Gael, in that policy document, described the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil's approach as the nod-and-wink approach of signing up to initiatives and telling the Irish people that it is something else.

The Taoiseach has adopted the Fine Gael approach and it has adopted his. It is a nod-and-wink approach of trying to dupe the Irish people that this is not about neutrality, it is about vetoes, while at the same time pursuing the Taoiseach's obsession of getting rid of neutrality. That is the reality of it. This is the first step, and let us be clear about it.

The Taoiseach should be honest with the Irish people. He should be clear about what this is all about and he should do the honourable thing. If he genuinely believes that he is acting in the interests of the Irish people, he should let the Irish people have their say. Let us have a referendum on Irish neutrality. Let us have the debate and let the people decide whether they cherish neutrality or whether they trust Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael with these decisions.

The Taoiseach

I have heard the Deputy suggest from time to time that we have a referendum to insert into the Constitution a clause dealing with neutrality. Sinn Féin has never published any suggested wording, any suggested definition-----

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Yes, we have.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

That is not true.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Yes, we have.

The Taoiseach

-----in respect of the type-----

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

We had legislation in this House several times by-----

Deputy Pearse Doherty

The Taoiseach would not allow a free vote.

The Taoiseach

I did not interrupt the Deputy. With respect-----

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

You are spoofing again.

The Taoiseach

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I am not interrupting you; I am correcting the record of the Dáil.

The Taoiseach

Here we go again.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The wording has been debated in here.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let the Taoiseach answer.

The Taoiseach

There is a reason I am putting the-----

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

You voted against it.

The Taoiseach

There is a reason I am putting the question.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

That is how much of a spoofer you are. You voted against it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please let the Taoiseach answer. The Deputy has made his point.

The Taoiseach

I do not think there is any need to answer anymore.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I want to raise the climate crisis with the Taoiseach. Today, we see the devastating report from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and the Climate Change Advisory Council. They tell us that on its current trajectory, the Government will clearly miss our legally binding 2030 climate targets. We all know the consequences of that failure will be enormous. That is set out in the report: €26 billion in fines; and the really serious impact upon generations to come who will see a future stolen from them, generations who rely on us to take the necessary actions now to cut our emissions, tackle climate change and protect our biodiversity.

The report is significant but it is not news. The Taoiseach and his Government colleagues must have known about the missed targets and this projection because they have seen so many public bodies already telling them about Government failure on this, for example, the SEAI and the EPA. While an ignorant failure of policy could be forgiven, this is a conscious failure of political will. There is no accountability for the Government's failure either.

Last week, the Taoiseach told the House that he had noticed, I think from the Opposition, a "deliberate attempt" to present this Government as rowing back on climate change. The Taoiseach said there had been no resiling by this Government from climate action but, in fact, has there not been a clear rowing back from the position on climate taken by the previous Government, of which the Green Party was a member? For example, only months after denying this would happen, the Government will now import dirty LNG into our country and it has abandoned, in its programme for Government, the spending ratio for active travel and public transport. The Government's programme will, instead, favour the building of "Roads, baby, roads", as Trump might say. Incredibly, the programme for Government makes no reference to the legally required carbon budgets or to sectoral emissions ceilings which might set a pathway for achieving net zero.

We all know that Ireland's 2021 climate law sets a 2030 target for reducing emissions by 51%. Crucial to achieving that target and setting us on the right pathway are our three five-year carbon budgets. This process is very important and it envisages review by the Oireachtas on an ongoing basis. It makes the climate Minister responsible for updating the annual climate action plan but the Minister has not published this year's new climate action plan. Despite the fact we are now in the third month of 2025, there is no Oireachtas climate committee.

Therefore there is very little opportunity for accountability. The Taoiseach will not even facilitate the flow of information. It seems all reports of the climate action delivery board have been removed from the gov.ie website.

It seems climate is not a priority for the Government, despite the Taoiseach’s protestations to the contrary, and it seems it is making no effort to meet the 2030 targets. I have one burning question: does the Taoiseach admit that the legally binding climate targets will not and cannot be met by his Government?

The Taoiseach

First, I reject what the Deputy has said. Is léir gurb í an ghéarchéim aeráide an ceann is tábhachtaí atá os comhair na Dála seo. Táimid sa Rialtas ag déanamh gach aon iarracht déileáil leis an bhfadhb sin agus tá sé sin le feiscint ón méid infheistíochta atá curtha isteach againn i bpolasaithe éagsúla a bhaineann leis an ngéarchéim aeráide.

There is no resiling or rowing back from our commitment to addressing the issue of climate change because it is existential to our society and the world at large. We are absolutely committed to delivering on our targets and responsibility. I do not accept the Deputy’s analysis. I think the past four years were very significant and the previous Government took very decisive action in respect of fundamental issues pertaining to climate, not least the commitment to offshore renewables in addition to the onshore renewable story.

The EPA’s most recent emission inventory report from July shows a decrease of 6.8% in Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2023. It is the lowest greenhouse gas emissions have been in three decades, below the 1990 baseline. This is despite a population increase of more than 1.5 million since 1990, the addition of more than 1 million new homes since 1990 and in excess of 1 million extra vehicles on our roads. In many respects, when the growth in population and growth in economic activity is juxtaposed with the reduction in emissions, what Ireland has achieved is quite a remarkable story, but it is not enough. Electricity in particular, industry, agriculture and the residential sector all show decreases in emissions. That is significant. There is huge spending. IFAC says “Spend more”. We are spending on the grid and on retrofits. We are spending right across the board. Fertiliser use has come down. We have to deal with realities as they present themselves. We have to bring people with us too in respect of climate change.

On the Deputy’s phrase “dirty LNG”, the memo today is about energy security. We have a responsibility that if anything were to happen or interrupt our current gas supplies, we would need a backup. It would be irresponsible not to do that. We are doing it in a way that is consistent with the European frameworks and the legal advice we have received in respect of that issue. It is not good enough for the Deputy to throw it aside as “dirty LNG”. There is a fundamental question. If something were to happen, and all the risk assessments have been done, and the gas supplies we are currently importing were interrupted, I would like to see what the Deputy would be saying in this House when the economy would crash.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I think we can agree on one thing: climate change is existential. The threat of climate change is clearly existential. Ach níl an Rialtas ag déanamh gach iarracht. The Government is not making every effort; clearly not. The trajectory of this Government is on course to miss climate targets, and to say otherwise flies in the face of the evidence that is being presented to the Taoiseach and all of us by these bodies.

The whole thing is reminiscent of the Taoiseach's reliance on inflated home delivery targets during the general election. He cannot rely on a target that he knows he will not achieve. There must be an awareness of this across government. If the Tánaiste was furious at that €120,000 spent on the scanner in the National Gallery, he will be incandescent about the €26 billion fine that the Government will face when we miss these targets in 2030.

Given that, on the current trajectory, the Government is on course to miss climate targets, what will it change immediately to ensure we will meet our climate targets? Can he admit to this House that the Government will not be able to meet them?

The Taoiseach

The Deputy seems to have deliberately used the upper range. It is from €8 billion to €26 billion.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

That is €26 billion.

The Taoiseach

It is highly speculative and highly uncertain about what will transpire. I listened to the authors this morning.

Suffice it to say, the Government is committed to achieving our targets. It will be very challenging, because as soon as we move on any one of them, different elements of the Opposition will oppose some of the measures we have announced and taken. A huge retrofitting programme is under way and our public transport usage is up 25%. We are fully committed to all the public transport initiatives we committed to in the previous Government. The issue is when those get realised and get through the various plannings and so on, be that metro or light rail in the various cities, but they are all progressing and will progress, and they are not mutually exclusive from road building either. If you talk to people in Macroom, they will tell you very quickly about the impact on emissions in the towns of Macroom or Ballyvourney of the Ballyvourney bypass. This idea that all roads are bad is a nonsense too, because sometimes they can be hugely environmentally beneficial to residential communities who have had to suffer terrible emissions and have been trapped in emissions clusters because of the lack of bypasses and so forth.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before I move to the Social Democrats, I welcome the group from Charleville CBS Primary. We have a pretty full Gallery today but we have a very special guest, a little girl of six years old called Maddie, whose dream was to come to the Dáil. Make her dream come true.

The Taoiseach

They may be looking for a bypass too.

An Ceann Comhairle

Very good.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I will hold you to that, Taoiseach.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Since the United Nations was founded, Ireland has stood steadfast for peace, multilateralism and acting only through a United Nations mandate. These have been core pillars of our international policy. This was something the Taoiseach used to recognise. He said attempts to dismantle the triple lock were "an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael which ignores the facts of Ireland’s international standing". Fianna Fáil has now been in government with Fine Gael for so long that their ideological obsessions have merged. Back then, the Taoiseach was clear the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality. He lambasted Fine Gael for its attempts to undermine it. Today a succession of Fianna Fáil Ministers are joining the Fine Gael chorus stating that the triple lock has nothing to do with our neutrality. It seems they have all drunk the Fine Gael Kool-Aid and are now singing off the same hymn sheet.

There have always been aggressors on the world stage, always those who seek to carve up the world and its resources. Ireland has always stood strong against these malign forces. In today's world, Putin and Trump are leading the charge to rip up multilateralism and we should never, ever follow them down that path. The response should be to stand strong in defence of peace and the United Nations. Instead, the Taoiseach is seeking to ditch Ireland's commitment to a multilateral approach.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Nonsense.

Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill

That is so wrong.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The Government is ripping up a multilateral approach. It absolutely is.

(Interruptions).

Deputy James Lawless

You want the veto.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

It absolutely is. We have a multilateral approach and ripping up the triple lock would bring us into a unilateral approach. That is absolutely the case.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The UN mandate gives a legitimacy to peacekeeping missions which would be impossible to replace. The blue beret our troops have worn with pride offers them a huge level of protection, and instead of acknowledging that, the Government is undermining this. In the election, Fianna Fáil promised reform of the triple lock, not to tear it to shreds. Yet another election promise is in tatters.

On Friday, as parents of children with additional needs without a school place slept out on the streets, the Tánaiste advocated spending billions on buying fighter jets. Meanwhile, there are only enough navy personnel to crew one ship to patrol our extensive coastline. What other multilateral body can confer the same legitimacy as UN-mandated missions, and where does the Taoiseach want to send Irish troops that they cannot already go to?

The Taoiseach

First, Ireland has distinguished itself in the peacekeeping missions that have been deployed all over the world.

We pay tribute to members of Óglaigh na hÉireann for discharging their duties honourably and with great professionalism. They are much sought after in trouble spots across the world because of that professionalism and commitment. I will put that on the record.

Second, Ireland is very committed to multilateralism. I have been honoured to address the United Nations, and its various forums, on a number of occasions. I am a multilateralist at heart. The only way small nations can have ultimate security is by being multilateral and by engaging in international forums, and Ireland does that exceptionally well. We have a brilliant diplomatic network that represents us at different UN, EU and international forums. We have been invited onto the G20 because of our activist position on international affairs.

Ending the triple lock in no way undermines commitment to multilateralism and I think we need to demythologise this. How does it undermine our commitment to multilateralism? It simply does not. The consultative forum brought that out. It is by dint of our performance in pushing issues like women in peace and security as an agenda item for the UN, for example, or profiling the shocking treatment of women in Afghanistan at the UN that distinguishes Ireland in terms of policies. We led the clusters munition convention over two decades ago with four other countries - Norway, Peru and others - to try to get rid of cluster munitions from battlefields and the conduct of war. Let us not undermine ourselves.

There is a fundamental paradox in what the Deputy is saying. Three years ago, Russia brutally invaded Ukraine, bombing civilian infrastructure and seeking to undermine the UN Charter. Yet, the Deputy is saying that Russia gives legitimacy to any peacekeeping mission we would embark upon. Russia is on the Security Council. That is what we are talking about here. We are now saying that those the Deputy accuses of ripping up the multilateral order should be given a veto as to whether Ireland participates in peacekeeping.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

That does not add up. It is completely in conflict. Both principles do not align at all. It is because of how Russia has been performing - others maybe put particularly Russia, and this did not just start with the invasion three years ago - that I cannot in conscience stand over a situation where we would say Russia should have a veto over whether Irish troops participate in peacekeeping missions.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thank the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

Looking at the influence of the Wagner Group in the Sahel in Africa , providing security to rogue and puppet regimes, are we really saying that is the country that should veto whether we participate in peacekeeping or not?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Callaghan, please.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

This is what the Taoiseach told the Dáil when he was in opposition:

Earlier this year, the Minister for Defence signalled that he would try to water down Ireland's commitment to the triple lock, which is at the core of our neutrality. He presented the idea it was contradictory and that we were giving unsavoury countries a veto over our actions. This argument has been behind the efforts of a wing of Fine Gael to erode neutrality over the years.

This is what the Taoiseach said. I could not put it better myself. He went on to say:

My party and I completely reject this. The United Nations is not working as it should [be] but we must not abandon it as an essential part of the international system.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Why has the Taoiseach capitulated to Fine Gael on this?

The Taoiseach

Because of war.

Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill

Russia invaded Ukraine.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

Maybe because they shouted at him like they are shouting now.

The Taoiseach

That quotation was from nearly a decade ago. The Deputy did not address anything I put to him.

Deputy Paul Murphy

You addressed it yourself.

The Taoiseach

Three years ago we had a state like Russia upend the multilateral order, upend the UN Charter and invade a peaceful country like Ukraine. I was the Minister for Defence for two years before becoming Taoiseach and saw at first hand how the existing legislation restricts our capacity to participate in overseas events. Even the number of 12, for example, is ridiculously low and is hampering our efforts to get in to help civilians in very difficult situations, be it in Sudan or elsewhere, and to extricate them from trouble spots. We need far more flexibility than the current framework gives us. Without question, watching what has been happening in the Security Council for the past number of years, I have come to the view that there is no way.

A number of peace missions will emerge from it. We have not had one sanctioned by the Security Council since 2014. As the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, knows, it was at the eleventh hour that we got permission for the continuation of Operation ALTHEA, which enabled us to continue to participate, but only just.

Deputy Charles Ward

I asked the Taoiseach a question last Tuesday on the defective concrete scheme and his answer was completely disingenuous. He is trying to mislead the public into thinking the scheme is working and many people have benefited from it. That could not be further from the truth. He claims 450 homes are under construction while failing to acknowledge only 69 homes have been completed. There is a big difference between a commencement and a completion - you cannot live in a commencement. The Taoiseach knows this, but rather than state the facts he attempts to mislead the public. With 69 completions since 2022, the scheme is not working. The Taoiseach has failed. The 450 homes he referred to may not necessarily even be going into construction. Sixty-nine completions since 2022 is 69 families - not 450 families - who are in their homes.

This completion rate is not reflective of the tens of thousands affected. Access to the scheme is limited, for many reasons: people cannot afford to get on it, working capital, financial shortfalls and lack of accommodation in Donegal. The homeowners who are availing of the scheme are going into more than €100,000 of debt. Their kids cannot go to college because they are trying to put a roof over their heads.

The amendment Bill the Government intends to bring in the spring has the potential to right many wrongs and could impact homeowners positively, but the Government has to work with the homeowners and with me to ensure this happens. In order to do this, we must face the reality and acknowledge the truth. The fact is that a minimum of 10,000 homes and 40,000 people in Donegal are impacted by this. The only way we can move forward is to work together.

Impacted homeowners in Donegal and across the country are desperately waiting for changes. They are desperately waiting for the rates and the caps. The Taoiseach knows that I.S. 465 is not fit for purpose. It is under review. We are all waiting but we all have to work off the same facts and figures. Truth needs to be told. We cannot afford to get this wrong again. It has been wrong on two occasions. People's mental and physical health is suffering.

I will ask the Taoiseach the question again and hope there is a genuine answer: will he work with me, the 100% Redress Party and the impacted homeowners to ensure the necessary changes are made? I am looking forward to a straight answer and dates.

The Taoiseach

Defective concrete blocks is a complex issue. This Government has been engaging with homeowners and various organisations from the very beginning. I met with some in my previous time as Taoiseach. The 2025 funding for this initiative has increased by over 50% from €45 million to €70 million. That means something is going on. There is activity, without question. The overall scheme is expected to cost €2.2 billion. The Government is committed to that and did commit to that. I am informed that currently, there are more than 2,000 homeowners at various stages of the scheme.

Changes are on the way. Grant rates were set and increased in 2024, based on expert advice, at a level that ensures homeowners will get the money they need to put their homes right. To ensure the grant scheme follows the most up-to-date science, changes were made to the scheme late in 2024 to take account of the most recent research. A forthcoming Bill will make amendments to the grant scheme to allow changes to be implemented by the administrators of the scheme, namely, the local authorities. There has been progress since the Act came in in 2022 and commenced in June 2023 and, as the Deputy has said, there have been various changes in respect of that.

There has been an increase in the scheme grant rates of between 7.4% and approximately 8.7%. Again, the scheme is kept under constant review by the Department. It has identified the process of reviewed changes to the scheme that will make it better for homeowners. That will be made shortly in a defective concrete amendment Bill. The programme for Government commits to undertaking the planned review of the scheme. The Deputy is correct. The forthcoming Bill will address matters such as the application of increased scheme rates and the overall cap, along with some other technical amendments to ensure the smooth operation of the grant scheme for homeowners. The Deputy is correct to say that the NSAI review is under way. That is awaited and is expected to be completed perhaps in quarter 1 of this year. That will obviously be important in terms of future amendments to the scheme or policy options in respect of it. However, as the Deputy knows, an expert group has been formed under the chair of Paul Forde to examine all research to date to provide advice as to the implications of all this research to the grant scheme. There is an independent appeals panel as well and that has commenced the process of assessing appeals.

Deputy Charles Ward

Will the Taoiseach give a specific date for when the people currently on the scheme can avail of the 10%? We are talking about people who are on the scheme. This scheme works. People are phoning me - the majority of whom are on the scheme - crying because the 10% is enough to keep their debt at approximately €100,000. Can I get a date for when this 10% will be implemented?

The Taoiseach

I am not in a position to give the Deputy dates or timelines today. There is work to be done on the legislation. Suffice to say that a comprehensive commitment has been given here by the last Government and followed through by this Government. The NSAI is currently examining the situation in terms of the most up-to-date scientific advice in respect of all of this. We will continue to work with stakeholders and representative groups in pursuing this and in getting this scheme going, or rather not getting it going but continuing it. There are 2,000 people engaging at different stages of the scheme. We just need to deliver it as quickly and as timely as we possibly can. There is a significant grant. Huge money has been allocated. There is no point saying otherwise.