I move:

Tuesday’s business shall be statements on Children's Health Ireland (not to exceed 3 hrs and 32 mins)

Tuesday's private members' business shall be motion re unnecessary hip surgeries at Children’s Health Ireland, selected by Sinn Féin.

Wednesday's business shall be:

- Motion re Report of the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform on Orders of Reference and Establishment of Committees

- Motion re opt-in to amending regulation on insolvency proceedings (to conclude within 60 minutes)

- Motion re first revision to the national planning framework (NPF) (to conclude within 3 hours)

- Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 (Committee Stage) (to commence no earlier than 5.45 p.m. and, if not previously concluded, to adjourn either at 9 p.m. or after 3 hrs, whichever is the later)

Wednesday's Private Members' business shall be the motion re special education, selected by the Labour Party.

Thursday’s business shall be:

- Motion re restoration of Private Members’ Bills

- Statements on the Farrelly commission report (to adjourn after 2 hrs)

- Statements on International Workers’ Day (not to exceed 2 hrs and 25 mins)

Proposed Arrangements for this week’s business:

In relation to Tuesday’s business, it is proposed that:

1. the ordinary routine of business as contained in Schedule 3 to Standing Orders shall be modified to the following extent:

(a) the Dáil may sit later than 10.48 p.m.; and

(b) Private Members' business may be taken later than 6.12 p.m. and shall in any event be taken on the conclusion of the statements on Children’s Health Ireland, with consequential effect on the commencement times for parliamentary questions to the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, and topical issues;

2. the statements on Children’s Health Ireland shall not exceed 3 hours and 32 minutes and the order of speaking and allocation of time shall be as follows:

(a) the arrangements for the statements, not including the ministerial response, shall be in accordance with the arrangements contained in the table immediately below (to be read across, not down);

(b) following the statements, a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed 10 minutes; and

(c) members may share time.

In relation to Wednesday’s business, it is proposed that:

1. the ordinary routine of business as contained in Schedule 3 to Standing Orders shall be modified to the following extent:

(a) the Dáil may sit later than 9.30 p.m. and shall adjourn on the conclusion of the weekly division time, which may be taken later than 8.45 p.m.; and

(b) the weekly division time shall be taken on the adjournment of proceedings on the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024: Provided that where the proceedings on that Bill conclude within the allotted time, the weekly division time shall be taken on the conclusion thereof, with consequential effect on the time for the adjournment of the Dáil;

2. the proceedings on the motion re Report of the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform on Orders of Reference and Establishment of Committees shall be taken without debate;

3. the proceedings on the motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the opt-in to amending regulation on insolvency proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 60 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply thereto:

(a) the order of speaking and allocation of time shall be as follows:-

opening speech by a Minister or Minister of State – 10 minutes;

speeches by representatives of Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, Social Democrats, Independent and Parties Technical Group, and Independent Technical Group – 7.5 minutes per party or group;

speeches by non-party/group members – 7.5 minutes in total; and

a speech in response by the Minister – 5 minutes; and

(b) members may share time;

4. the proceedings on the motion re first revision to the national planning framework (NPF) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 3 hours and the following arrangements shall apply thereto:

(a) the order of speaking and allocation of time shall be as follows:

(i) the arrangements for the speeches, not including the ministerial response, shall be in accordance with the arrangements contained in the table immediately below (to be read across, not down); and

(ii) following the speeches, a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed 10 minutes; and

(b) members may share time; and

5. the proceedings on Committee Stage of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 shall be taken either at 5.45 p.m. or on the conclusion of the motion re first revision to the national planning framework (NPF), whichever is the later, and shall, if not previously concluded, be interrupted and stand adjourned either at 9 p.m. or after 3 hours, whichever is the later.

In relation to Thursday’s business, it is proposed that:

1. (a) the ordinary routine of business as contained in Schedule 3 to Standing Orders shall be modified to the following extent:

(i) no motion for a committee report pursuant to Standing Order 111 or private member's Bill pursuant to Standing Order 169 shall be taken; and

(ii) topical issues may be taken earlier than 7.24 p.m. and the Dáil shall adjourn on the conclusion thereof; and

(b) the Dáil on its rising shall adjourn until 2 p.m. on Wednesday 7th May, 2025;

2. the proceedings on the motion re restoration of Private Members’ Bills shall be taken without debate;

3. the statements on the Farrelly commission report shall be interrupted and stand adjourned after 2 hours and the order of speaking and allocation of time shall be as follows:

(a) the arrangements for the statements shall be in accordance with those contained in the table immediately below (to be read across, not down);

(b) any speaking slots which are not reached may be taken on Wednesday, 7th May, 2025, in accordance with the agreed sequence; and

(c) members may share time; and

4. the Statements on International Worker's Day shall not exceed 2 hours and 25 minutes and the order of speaking and allocation of time shall be as follows:

(a) the arrangements for the statements, not including the ministerial response, shall be in accordance with the arrangements contained in the table immediately below (to be read across, not down);

(b) following the statements, a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed 10 minutes; and

(c) members may share time.

Are the proposed arrangements for the business agreed?

Not agreed.

Before the Deputies start, I remind them they have 30 seconds each.

I listened to the Taoiseach's comments about neutrality over the weekend. As he knows, the triple lock arose from two referendums the Irish people voted on where it was used as an assurance around neutrality. I ask him clearly, if he is going to reverse that, to commit to a referendum. If he is going to get rid of the triple lock, will he put it to a referendum of the Irish people and give them assurances around that? Will he and the Tánaiste facilitate statements taking questions from the Opposition? He called us an aggressive Opposition for defending the rights of the Irish people in two referendums. That is not aggressive; that is a principled stand for the Irish people.

The lads are watching it in Arbour Hill as well.

The proposal for a so-called housing tsar will be one of the most egregious of this Government. The details in the programme for Government stated it would be under the Minister for housing but it is emerging that the pay would come from the Department of Finance. We are still unclear as to the remit or powers this new, well-remunerated role will have. As the Government dragged its heels on setting up committees and we probably still will not have them in two weeks, we think there is an urgent need for clarification on the floor of the House this week.

I understand and appreciate that later this week we will have statements on the Farrelly commission report but given the gravity of the failures Grace has had to endure, perhaps words alone will not be enough in this instance. After nearly a decade and a cost of €13 million, basic questions still have not been answered. If the Government wants to take action and do something constructive, adult safeguarding legislation must be introduced. We do not want other vulnerable people to be failed in the same way Grace has been. The story of Grace should serve as a watershed moment for Ireland. Will the Taoiseach bring forward the legislation?

I was bemused to listen to the Taoiseach painting his housing policy as a success rather than a deep failure. Housing construction, social housing, affordable housing - every one of the targets is being missed, while 4,675 children woke up this morning in emergency accommodation. That will affect them for the rest of their lives but the Taoiseach does not seem to care because rents continue to rise, prices continue to rise-----

Thank you, Deputy Murphy.

----and landlords and developers profit. Can we have a debate on housing in this House or will the Taoiseach wait and delay the housing plan-----

Deputy Murphy, 30 seconds is 30 seconds.

-----until the summer to avoid any accountability?

I call Deputy Michael Collins.

I have been asking for the last number of weeks at Business Committee meetings for a debate on a farming issue. There are 9,000 farmers without ACRES payments - 2023 payments and 2024 payments. These farmers need to pay their bills urgently. Tomorrow morning, with a carbon tax up on people's backs again, it is becoming impossible to live. We need a debate here to see where these payments are and why they are not being paid out to farmers, as well as on the carbon tax, which they cannot afford.

Thank you. I call the Chief Whip.

A Cheann Comhairle-----

I want to raise an issue.

On what basis?

Under Standing Order 35(3).

Could we stop the clock for a minute while I consult with the clerk in relation to it? What is the issue, Deputy?

Any Member is permitted under the standing order to propose an amendment to the Order of Business. I propose that we need statements and questions taken by the Minister for Health in respect to the emerging scandal around hip dysplasia surgery and unnecessary surgeries, it seems, on very young children.

Thank you, Deputy.

There is five hours of debate.

Just a second, Taoiseach.

She will be answering questions.

And questions.

I call the Chief Whip.

In relation to the issues that were raised, Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised neutrality and the triple lock. I appreciate his attention to the Taoiseach's speech.

It is okay. That is a compliment.

I would not put words in your mouth.

Deputies, please.

My apologies. The point I want to get to is that three of the items that were raised on the Order of Business for this week are not on the agenda, so we will discuss those at the Business Committee on Thursday morning as per usual

The Minister will take statements on the Farrelly report and the Grace case tomorrow-----

And questions.

-----and it is also scheduled for next week.

In response to Deputy Collins, I am in discussion with the Minister to schedule this issue as soon as possible. I accept and acknowledge that he has raised it several times. We can discuss it at the Business Committee on Thursday morning.

And questions to the Minister.

To be clear on the agenda, we have statements on Children's Health Ireland for 202 minutes at 4.30 this evening and Sinn Féin is then bringing forward a Private Members’ motion on unnecessary hip surgeries, so the Minister will be in the House discussing health issues for five hours this evening.

She will not be answering questions.

Is the amendment accepted?

It is not accepted.

There is a shocker.

Are the proposed arrangements agreed to?

Not agreed.

The Taoiseach will be aware that there is a special emergency meeting of Cork City Council tonight to discuss the closing-off of the tenant in situ scheme. It is a scheme that allows people who are on the housing list and are facing eviction to be housed by the council with the council buying the property. The tenant in situ scheme prevented 100 children from becoming homeless last year in Cork city alone. It is a no-brainer of a scheme. It is to the benefit of landlords who wish to sell, to the council and, most of all, to the tenants who are potentially facing eviction getting their forever home. The decision to close off this scheme is cruel and short-sighted. Will the Taoiseach give the commitment that he will listen to the voices of the representatives of the people of Cork with regard to tonight's Cork City Council meeting? Most of all, will he give the commitment to listen to those tenants who are potentially facing homelessness, some of whom had proceeded quite a distance in progressing this scheme, only to see the trapdoor close it off? Will the Taoiseach commit to restoring funding and reopening the tenant in situ scheme for these families?

Hear, hear.

The tenant in situ scheme has not been closed at all, as the Deputy knows.

It is closed off.

It is in Cork.

There has been a very strong performance in the scheme since it was introduced in 2023. More than 1,800 social homes were acquired in 2023, of which more than 1,000 were for properties where tenants received a notice of termination. This year the Minister has allocated €325 million to the tenant in situ scheme. It was announced for this year. There are issues and the local authority in Cork raised some of those issues. There was engagement between officials in the Department of housing and officials in Cork City Council but it is not correct to say the scheme has been closed off. That is simply just not true.

If it is closed to families, then it is closed off.

The scheme is open and the bottom line is that the programme for Government commits to the continuation of the tenant in situ scheme. The allocation of resources has been made. There are issues in terms of numbers, refurbishment and all that kind of thing. These are issues that will still have to be resolved between officials.

These families are facing homelessness. The Taoiseach should just go ahead and allow the local authorities to purchase the houses.

I was curious to read today about apparent opposition from some in the Taoiseach's party and in Fine Gael about the prospect of expanding parental choice in education. I very much welcomed the proposals from the Minister, Deputy McEntee, to create more multidenominational schools in Ireland. The Labour Party has always stood for increased choice in schooling. I have campaigned successfully in my own communities for new multidenominational schools. The former Minister, Ruairí Quinn, really led on seeking to expand parental choice. Yet, 90% of primary schools in this country still have a Catholic ethos. This is out of step with the changing dynamic in Irish society. The majority of teachers favour separating church and education. We know that many more parents now are choosing to send their children to multidenominational schools. It is, therefore, rather surprising to see what is a positive proposal from the Minister, Deputy McEntee, being described apparently as woke and bizarre in a critical sense - anonymously it must be said - by some of her colleagues in government. It seems that, as with marriage equality and repeal, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs are often out of step with the national mood. Does the Taoiseach have any comment to make on this?

As articulated very clearly by the Minister for Education, Deputy McEntee, the Government is in favour of parental choice in respect of school choice. I have been a strong supporter of multidenominational education. Way back, I was involved in providing for the first time 100% grant aid. The Ranelagh school benefited from that decision. The late Mary O'Rourke was the game-changer in paving the way for multidenominational schools. There is parental choice across the board. We have different patrons and it is the policy to continue with a multi-patron approach to education, consulting with parents, and increasingly with students more generally, to make sure there is a diversity of provision in education, and that parental choice is prioritised.

My question is similar to that of the previous speaker with regard to parental choice. I was very disappointed to see Government backbenchers expressing what is maybe a U-turn in what the programme for Government was talking about in 2020 on school patronage. It does not seem to appear in the current programme for Government, which I am a little bit concerned about. With 94% of primary schools being under religious ethos, that means only 6% are not. In areas like my own, 79% of parents are not identifying as Catholic. I did serve on the board of Educate Together with Mary O'Rourke, and I was very happy to do so, and I know the Taoiseach has been a supporter. There needs, however, to be clarity from the Government as to exactly what its stance is. I urge the Taoiseach to be very clear so that parents understand what exactly the Government's position is now on school patronage.

We are, and have been, very clear and the investment shows it. There have been some first-class multidenominational schools built. I have opened one or two of them in the last two to three years. These are first class, state-of-the-art provision. It is likewise in Catholic voluntary schools, Church of Ireland schools, Gaelscoileanna, Gaelcholáistí and a variety of schools. Plurality of school provision and parental choice is where the Government policy sits.

We need to sweat our assets more. Where it is logical for divestment or where a school building is available, it should be used and enhanced. This makes value for money. That issue cannot always be the last item on the agenda. We should focus on it strongly as well.

Legislation to abolish the triple lock is included in the spring legislative programme. The Nice treaty would not have passed in a referendum the second time around without the national declaration promising to retain the triple lock the Government lodged alongside it. Will the Government hold a referendum on the triple lock before attempting to pass legislation here to abolish it? Is the plan to force abolition through - relying on the majority provided by Deputy Lowry - and then quietly withdraw Ireland's national declaration from international law? At the weekend, the Taoiseach said he would have no difficulty whatsoever in bringing to the democratic Parliament of this Republic a proposal to remove the triple lock. Does he include in this idea compliance with what is left of that parliament's democratic procedures? Will he commit not to apply a guillotine in respect of any part of the debate on this legislation? Will he commit to full pre-legislative scrutiny and to not ramming this through the House to avoid debate?

At the weekend, I said very clearly that I did not believe Ireland should allow an imperialistic aggressor nation a veto on Irish troops' participation in peacekeeping missions. That is essentially our position. That is why the triple lock needs amendment in the context of how the world has evolved geopolitically and of the stance taken by permanent members of the Security Council. In our view, an aggressor nation like Russia should not have a veto on our participation in peacekeeping.

Does the Taoiseach commit not to apply a guillotine? Can we have a commitment that there will not be a guillotine on debate on the triple lock?

The Deputy has had his time.

It is very revealing that the Taoiseach is not answering that question. He will not even commit to the democratic procedures of this Parliament.

With respect to your colleagues-----

It is outrageous that he will not even commit not to guillotine debate.

How can this Government stand over the defunding of Cork City Council through the shutdown of the 2024 social housing acquisition programme, leaving 28 families, some of whom have elderly or disabled members and some of whom are living with young children with special needs, at immediate risk of homelessness? Under Circular 11/2025, the Department allocated just €20 million to Cork City Council despite a project need of €33 million. That is a shortfall of €13 million. This leaves uncertainty and possible homelessness for a number of people in the city the Taoiseach and I share. In 2024, over a third of homelessness prevention in Cork came from the tenant in situ scheme. That scheme has been absolutely fantastic, and I praise the Government for the work that has been done on it. However, the pause on new applications to the scheme will have a detrimental effect, particularly on the 28 families to which I refer. Will the Taoiseach speak to his housing tzar or his Minister and secure this €13 million for Cork City Council?

To go by the Deputy's figures, it is now April and I find it difficult to comprehend how €20 million has already been allocated in three months. There is a need to bottom this out more and for ongoing engagement between the officials in the Department of housing and those in Cork City Council. The refinement of the tenant in situ scheme was to make sure funding would be allocated for people in immediate danger of falling into homelessness unless a house was purchased. The scheme was administered or delivered in different ways across the country. This led to a review of the scheme with a view to targeting resources more. It is my understanding that those acquisitions committed to will be fulfilled. The Minister is scheduled to meet with the chief executive officer of the city council.

In the context of commercial drone deliveries, initial proposals relate to the delivery of food but the application of the technology could be extended to parcel deliveries. The issue came to me because the area is very unregulated. There is a commitment in the programme for Government that AirNav, formerly a section of the Irish Aviation Authority and now a newly established separate body, will examine the issue. Residents in my area are concerned. They have come to me because of one proposed application, but this highlights the absence of regulation in the area. They have reasonable concerns around the hours of work, the safety of drones flying above residential areas and the impacts on the airport and its boundaries. We should not stifle innovation in this area but there should be regulations in place.

I would definitely be inclined to agree with the Deputy. This is a new area of development. When you endeavour to comprehend the idea of drones flying left, right and centre performing various functions, the question of regulatory and safety frameworks to govern all of that activity arises. That point is well made. I suggest that the relevant Oireachtas committee take this matter up with a view to examining it in greater detail. I will talk to the Minister in respect of the issue now that the Deputy has raised it.

I raise the urgent need for the water network servicing Ballyhooly in my constituency of Cork East to be repaired. Unfortunately, homes and businesses in Ballyhooly continue to experience regular water supply disruptions and low water pressure. This has resulted in residents being unable to conduct daily practices such as showering or washing clothes and dishes, making living conditions unbearable. I understand that Uisce Éireann has identified and repaired network leaks and implemented remedial measures. However, the issue persists. Does the Taoiseach agree that this situation should not have arisen in the first place and that, having persisted for so long, it must be addressed as a matter of urgency? Will he intervene directly with Uisce Éireann to see what can be done to fix this once and for all?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I met with Uisce Éireann recently. It is conscious of challenges and difficulties with water supply and quality in the Cork area, particularly on the north side of Cork, extending into Ballyhooly. It is my understanding that remedial works are taking place to progressively improve the situation. I will again raise the issue with Uisce Éireann with a view to alerting it to the fact that the Deputy raised the matter in the House and to keeping pressure on to make sure that remedial work continues in the interests of the people living in the area and availing of the water supply.

Four weeks ago, I raised with the Taoiseach the case of four-year-old William Jonathan Moore who has been diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, Duchenne muscular dystrophy. As I said at the time, his condition is so rare that no treatment is available in Ireland or the EU. William has been accepted for treatment at the Boston Children's Hospital but the United States is not covered under the treatment abroad scheme. The Taoiseach told me here in the Dáil:

If it is only available in the US, we should do something about that. I will come back to the Deputy about it and will talk to the Minister for Health.

In the past four weeks, neither I nor William's family have got any update despite our requests. How is this acceptable? The Taoiseach said we should do something about it and that he would talk to the Minister. Is he actually going to do something to help this family? Will he stay true to his word? Is he going to talk to the Minister for Health to help to find a solution for William and his family? This is a time-sensitive case.

Will the Deputy bring the details of the case to me after this session? I will then deal with it.

We have already sent them to you. I then sent them to you again. It keeps going back to the Minister for Health but I am not getting a response.

I am only a phone call away. I will talk to the Deputy afterwards.

Research commissioned by Limerick Chamber of Commerce revealed that of the houses purchased in the State over the past two years, 40% were purchased either by approved housing bodies or other entities supported by the State. Contrary to what we hear from some on the other side of the House, that represents substantial public investment in the private housing sector, which is to be welcomed. However, the comparable figure in Limerick city is 60%. In other words, State entities and approved housing bodies purchased over 60% of houses that were for sale in Limerick city over the past two years. That is creating tremendous pressure for potential owner-occupiers, namely those who want to buy their own houses and live private estates.

This has led to a number of very undesirable consequences, not least the massive increase in rents in Limerick over the past five years. Will the Department engage with Limerick City and County Council to redress this imbalance?

If it is 60%, that is too high. It creates unfair pressure for those, namely young couples or young people generally, who might be endeavouring to buy houses for the first time. I will certainly talk to the Minister for housing and Limerick City and County Council on that issue. The balance has to be right. We want approved housing bodies and councils to be building houses in the first instance. The more social houses we build, the more pressure will be taken off the private sector. We do not want councils or approved housing bodies competing with people who want to buy houses at affordable prices.

A new Garda divisional headquarters has been agreed for Sligo but the timeframe for the start of the project remains unclear. A site in a very strategic part of Sligo town was purchased some years ago. This could provide an ideal location for other emergency services apart from a central Garda headquarters. Earlier this year, the then Minister for Justice announced a new divisional headquarters for Sligo had been agreed in principle by An Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice and that the necessary work to draft the preliminary business case required under infrastructure guidelines from the Department of public expenditure had commenced. Has this business case been completed? If not, when will it be completed?

I do not have the details on that matter. However, I will talk to the Minister for Justice and ask him if he can communicate with the Deputy in respect of it.

Parents across the country have been telling me of the difficulties they are experiencing in the context of their children accessing appropriate mental health care. They talk to me about hurdle after hurdle and being handed off from one service to another service, with no actual proper service being provided for their children. One parent told me how their child had been refused support, despite expressing suicidal ideation. Another father told me that their child had been admitted to accident and emergency six times - three times for suicide attempts - before support was put in place. Another child was discharged from hospital without there being any follow-up support put in place or doctors being informed of their suicidal ideation. This is not only exasperating and frightening for families, it is deeply harmful to those children. They have been left in crisis with nowhere to turn. These families expressed utter shock and, in certain cases, revulsion about the fact that the State spends so little on the mental health budget. What is being spent is well below both what was recommended in the Sláintecare report and what is spent in the UK.

I thank the Deputy for her question. This year, €160 million has been allocated to the 81 child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, teams across the country. That includes five eating disorder teams for young people. An additional €3 million has been allocated for a waiting list initiative. Yesterday, I visited two CAMHS teams, one in Ashbourne, County Meath, and the other in Swords, County Dublin. I visited three teams in Cork in the past three weeks as well. I am taking an approach of going to meet teams to find out exactly where the challenges lie.

The Deputy is quite right in what she said. There are a lot of referrals to CAMHS but the number of acceptances from referrals varies across teams. It is always a consultant psychiatrist working a the multidisciplinary team who will determine whether a child meets the criteria or not. I also meet families who cannot understand why their children do not meet the criteria. We also have a lot of children presenting with a dual diagnosis whereby there is a mental health issue in addition to autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder----

With the greatest of respect to the Minister of State, a suicidal child meets the criteria.

We will continue to invest in mental health services.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. Yet, this is what we keep doing in relation to the scourge of nitrous oxide usage. The latter has led to serious injury and death in this country and is now a major source of litter in our communities. So far, it has been left to the Revenue Commissioners to deal with the issue. In that context, they seized 55,000 large canisters last year. The HSE focuses on giving advice to parents on a harm-reduction fact sheet. Otherwise, we rely on section 74 of the Child Care Act 1991, which relates to selling things to under-18s. That is not enough. This scourge is growing in our communities, so more is needed from a legislative and resourcing perspective. Will the Taoiseach commit to bring in meaningful measures to reduce the circulation of nitrous oxide for non-industrial purposes, further restricting its sale and seriously prosecuting those involved in the distribution of this harmful substance?

I thank Deputy Gogarty for raising this issue. I will talk to him again about this, but I accept that it is a serious issue. Very often, some of these issues fall between two or three stools, particularly in the context of who is legislatively responsible or when it comes to the different areas involved. We need a co-ordinated approach in respect of this issue. The Ministers for Justice and Health may have a role to play in terms of a legislative response to the issue of sales to under-18s. We do it for other products and substances so there is no reason why we cannot do it in this instance.

President Higgins rightly warned this week against the outrageous abuse of antisemitism accusations to silence criticism of Israel and its genocidal actions in Gaza. Yet, the Government continues to endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA, definition despite it being internationally discredited for its chilling effect on free speech and legitimate condemnation of Israel's actions in Gaza. Be it in the arts, academia or civic discourse, legitimate criticism and condemnation of Israel's cruel actions in Gaza are shut down on the basis of accusations of antisemitism that are contained in this definition. Will the Taoiseach reconsider the use of the definition in the programme for Government?

We have already taken that decision. It is not sustainable to say it has a chilling effect because it does not have a chilling effect. Every member state of the European Union, including Ireland, has signed up to the IHRA definition. However, this has not stopped Spain, Ireland, Slovenia and other countries from criticising the State of Israel in respect of its campaign in and bombardment of Gaza or the prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza.

Why have it, then?

There is no evidence that it has actually had a chilling effect.

Why have it?

There is a clause in the explanatory note, but that is not part of the guidelines. We have been very clear that it in no way, shape or form inhibits anybody from criticising, legitimately, the policies of the Israeli Government in respect of Gaza or the West Bank. That is the factual position, but people keep making these assertions. It has not stopped us one bit from doing what we want to do in respect of our policy on the Middle East.

I raise the issue of housing adaptation grants and the funding being made available across the country. From speaking to former colleagues on Wexford County Council and some of the officials there and colleagues from around the country across the Chamber, there seems to be a serious difficulty in terms of funding for the adaptation grants. While applications are being accepted, unless people are classed as medical priority 1, there does not appear to be any hope of receiving sanction for grants in the near future.

While I appreciate that the grant was increased by €10,000, which was most welcome, it is still very difficult to get a lot of the work involved done. In the context of things like access ramps, wet-room rails and the replacement of dilapidated windows and doors, the Taoiseach will appreciate that it is a big deal for older people if they are told they will have to wait for years. In County Wexford, a person who is not classed as priority 1 will encounter serious difficulties in trying to access a grant from the council. Will the Taoiseach comment on this matter?

The housing adaptation grant was increased. The grant is very important, and we will be keeping it under review as we move forward.

Another carbon tax increase will hit people hard in the pocket tomorrow morning. Last October, carbon tax increases hit motorists in the pocket as petrol and diesel increased from €56 per tonne to €63.50 per tonne. Tomorrow's increase will hit people using gas, home heating oil, coal and briquettes. Household gas bills will rise by €17. The cost of home heating oil will rise by €19 per 900 l. It now costs €160 extra for 900 l of home heating oil and 17 cent extra for a litre of petrol or diesel since the carbon tax began.

Carbon tax receipts topped the €1 billion mark last year. Independent Ireland called for a freeze on carbon tax increases in the run-up to the last election, as did many Independent TDs who have now changed their minds. Does the Taoiseach accept that this is hitting the most vulnerable in society and will he freeze any more increases in carbon tax?

In the broader scheme of things, compared with other increases that have happened because of pressures in the market and so on, the impact of this is not similar in scale.

However, the Deputy has rightly raised issues about payments to farmers. A third of that revenue goes to farmers in terms of environmental schemes. A third goes to retrofitting. The Deputy will come in to me another day asking for an expansion of the retrofitting scheme and the elasticity of it - make it simpler, make it better, provide better grants and so on. Then there are the fuel allowances. Up to €1,200 in per-person payments were made last year in respect of fuel allowances. All that is coming from the revenue that is raised from the carbon tax. It enables a sustainable revenue stream for those three areas: farming, fuel poverty and retrofitting. Without it, I do not think the retrofitting scheme would have expanded to the degree that it has. We acknowledge that we can improve upon that scheme, but that is the trade-off.