Ireland should be a country where every child is safe going to bed at night. The attack on the home of the women and children in Drogheda at the weekend shocked the nation. People are asking how has it come to this, and how could anyone try to burn and kill children while they sleep.

It is vitally important that all of us show leadership. Words matter. The Tánaiste's words matter. Where misinformation is spread, we must challenge it. Where there are attempts to sow hate and division, we must build cohesion. Leadership means bringing calm to a debate, not inflaming it. The Tánaiste has said that migration, outside of the number of international protection applicants, is too high. What sectors will he be targeting to reduce the number of migrant workers? Will he be targeting multinationals, pharmaceutical and tech companies? The Tánaiste knows well that these sectors provide a huge amount of employment and taxation which funds our public services. Will the Tánaiste be targeting the health and care sectors? If it was not for migrants working as doctors, nurses and carers, these services would crumble.

Will the Tánaiste be targeting the large number of migrant workers that our food processing sector relies on? How would a shortage of workers in this sector impact on grocery prices? I doubt somehow that the Tánaiste will target the hospitality and tourism sectors. Which cafés, pubs, restaurants or hotels would the Government close? Is the Government thinking of reducing the supply of construction workers? This would have a detrimental effect on our ability to build the homes that are needed, the schools and hospitals. Which major infrastructure projects would the Tánaiste shelve? It is migrants who do essential work as security guards, cleaners and shop workers. Does Government think we can somehow do without these essential workers?

Migrants play a critical role in our economy and our society. It is not just as doctors, nurses or carers - they bring skills and expertise to a wide range of sectors and contribute significant levels of taxation that fund our public services. Migrants are not just critical to our economy; they contribute to communities, culture and sport. They are our friends, our family members and our neighbours. I welcome the news that Zohran Mamdani has been elected mayor of New York. In his victory speech on Tuesday night he said, "New York will remain a city of immigrants: a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and, as of tonight, led by an immigrant." It is a powerful reminder that immigration is not a threat; it is a source of strength. As the Tánaiste will know, many of the immigrants who built New York came from Ireland. We should show the same pride in the people helping to build and power our country now.

We have an ageing population, which means that our reliance on migrant workers will only increase in years to come.

Conclude, Deputy O'Callaghan.

We need these workers to keep our public services running, to ensure our elderly are cared for, to keep businesses open and to keep tax revenues flowing. Has the Tánaiste thought this through? Which sectors of the economy will he be targeting for reductions in migrant workers?

First, I join the Deputy in agreeing that what we saw happen in Drogheda at the IPAS centre is the most despicable crime. It is attempted murder. It has nothing to do with a migration debate in this country - absolutely nothing. It is a horrific, almost unspeakable act where babies and young children were sleeping upstairs. Everybody in this country, regardless of their political perspective, is utterly horrified. We are all united on that.

I also join the Deputy in reiterating what I already said and what I say every time I speak about migration: migration is a good thing and migrants make a positive contribution to this country. I do not in any way doubt that. I often say that our health service would fall over if it was not for people coming in. I take the Deputy's point that they are in many other parts of our economy and our society. When you go into our schools and see the diversity, that is a good thing. I do not have any disagreement with the Deputy or anybody else on that.

I also know this: we have to have a clear migration policy. It is a statement of fact that our population has grown at a very fast rate. It is a statement of fact that for every 10,000 people who come into our country, roughly 3,000 more homes are needed. I believe it is a statement of fact that we need to look at migration in the round, we need to plan for it and we need to have a mature discussion about what is an appropriate level of migration. We need to do exactly what the Deputy has suggested, which is to go through our economy sector by sector and identify the work needs there. The Future Forty document that has been published this week by my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, is very useful in terms of analysing around 2,000 potential different scenarios regarding how our country might develop and grow in our demographics.

We need to have an evidence-based debate. The Deputy has not said it but some of the comments from his party this week were disappointing. Accusing someone of dog whistling and at the same time calling them Nigel Farage, which I think is a dog whistle, is not a mature debate.

People from other political parties immediately just call me names for stating the fact that, in my view, migration has risen at too high a rate, but it actually is not just my view. I have here a graph that uses Eurostat data. The green line shows Ireland's net migration and the blue line is the equivalent Europe and the grey line is the equivalent for the eurozone. It can be seen objectively that over the last several years our population, in terms of net migration, has risen way faster than the European average and way faster than the eurozone average, and that is a challenge. The extremes in politics, which neither the Deputy nor I is a part of, on the far left and the far right are the ones that fester when politicians of whatever stripe in the centre do not stand up and show willingness to engage, discuss and debate.

The Government intends to do two things. It intends to bring forward new legislation for international protection and there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed, including the fact that the majority of applications are refused. The Government also intends to produce a national migration strategy in 2026 to have an evidence-based, data-driven, informed discussion. I would invite people across the House to engage with that in a calm and responsible manner.

We do need to look at the facts, and the Tánaiste knows them well. The Government published a report this week saying that to meet housing demand alone, we need at least 50,000 additional construction workers. The Tánaiste also knows the facts about our ageing population. Again, the report pointed to the situation that we will soon have a reduction in the numbers in our workforce who will be able to support people who are retired, to pay for pensions and to care for our elderly. The Tánaiste knows these facts. Unless there is a miraculous baby boom, we are going to need more and more migrant workers to help support our public services and our economy, to care for our elderly and to contribute to society, and that is a good thing. Migrant workers have played a very positive role in Ireland and we are going to continue to need that. We are talking about cutting off some of the supply of workers that we need in different parts of our economy. I have listed off a range of areas where migrants are essential. I challenge the Tánaiste to say where he will reduce the supply of migrant workers. Is it in housing, health, pharma or tech? What area of the economy does the Tánaiste think can do with fewer migrant workers? Let us stick to the facts. Where does the Tánaiste think there is an oversupply in the workforce at the moment?

Twenty nine per cent of our total immigration figures last year came from international protection, or 18,561. The Deputy has not done so today, but I reject the argument made by some in recent days that international protection is an incidental part of this conversation. I reject that; it is not. When we consider that there were 18,561 applications for international protection in 2004 and that more than 80% of applications so far this year have been rejected in the first instance, we have a challenge there. We can debate the statistics and-----

Answer the question.

I am answering the question.

Where in the economy can we do with fewer people?

Last year, 18,561 people came here through international protection and a majority of those applications were rejected. They were found not to qualify for international protection. That needs to be addressed.

A third were reversed.

On the next issue, yes, we continue to need people to come. Nobody is proposing a migration policy that would see us not issuing work visas or work permits, but it has to be looked at in a balanced manner and sector by sector. I am sure that the Deputy will accept the facts from the ESRI that for every 10,000 people who come into our country, 3,000 more homes are needed.

We need more people to build homes.

We also need to recognise that every time people come into the country, there is increased pressure on public services. We have to consider this in a balanced fashion. This is not a radical concept. This is something that happens in most mature democracies, in most European countries. We are late to this because migration numbers have only become a larger issue of public debate in recent years after the war in Ukraine and other things. This is what mature democracies and responsible politicians do. They put in place a migration policy and make sure the rules are applied. If a person has a right to be here, great, they should be allowed to make their contribution and be integrated and supported and we will thank them for doing so. However, if someone does not have a right to be here, we have to address that as well.