Leaders' Questions

Aréir, chonaic muid ar an teilifís náisiúnta ceathrar sceithirí de chuid An Garda Síochána. Is daoine iad seo a rinne iarracht imní tromchúiseach a ardú taobh istigh den Garda Síochána. Deir siad gur cuireadh ar leataobh iad, gur cuireadh bac orthu agus gur gearradh pionóis orthu. Tá sé de cheart ag an phobal anois a bheith ar an eolas faoi cé a bhí ar an eolas sa Rialtas faoin dóigh ar caitheadh leis na sceithirí seo agus an gníomh a rinneadh de bharr na himní tromchúisí a chuir siad chun tosaigh. Last night, four Garda whistleblowers took the extraordinary step of going on national television. They waived their anonymity and told the public their story. These are people who tried to raise serious concerns from inside An Garda Síochána, who have given decades of service and tried to fulfil their duty to challenge wrongdoing. Instead, they say they were sidelined, obstructed and penalised. Anyone watching the programme last night could see they were devastated. It has taken a real toll on all of them and on their lives. Two of them worked in the protected disclosures office itself, the very system established after the Maurice McCabe scandal to protect people who speak out. Last night, they described a system in crisis. We heard about a shotgun that disappeared from Garda custody and 13 years later turning up in the hands of criminals. We heard much more. We heard about the confidential protected disclosure file concerning that weapon that was marked for closure without the knowledge or consent of the person responsible for managing the case. This morning, on Newstalk, deputy commissioner Paul Cleary acknowledged that former Commissioner Drew Harris had intervened in the protected disclosure process. What whistleblowers were telling the public last night as interference has now directly been acknowledged, in respect of the Commissioner's involvement, by one of the most senior officers in An Garda Síochána. That is a shocking development. One issue brings the human consequences of all of this into particular stark focus, the Garda holsters which were dangerously defective. Just six days before Detective Garda Colm Horkan was murdered, another garda suffered life-changing injuries when his firearm discharged while it was in one of these holsters. Detective Garda Colm Horkan was murdered after his own firearm was taken from his holster and used to kill him. It has been suggested that this was only possible because the holster was defective. The holsters were supplied not by a specialist firearms manufacturer but by a maker of saddles for horses. When the protected disclosure office sought the assistance of retired lieutenant colonel Ray Lane, an experienced weapons expert, Garda management intervened and blocked it. Lane was not appointed and the authority of Rose Sweeney, who had discretion to make that decision, was badly undermined. Many of these matters are not secret. They have been raised internally, discussed in this House and reported prominently in national newspapers over the years. The Department when the Minister was Minister for justice knew about this. It was informed in August 2020 about the issues regarding these holsters. A protected disclosure was made directly to her that month shortly after she became Minister for justice. I want to ask her directly because she avoided answering some of these questions in the years that have gone past. When was she first made aware of an issue with the holsters as Minister for justice? Was she briefed about the safety concerns surrounding them? What did she do about the treatment of the whistleblowers raising these concerns? When all of this came across her desk as Minister for justice, what did she do about it? Does she now accept given the statement of the deputy commissioner on Newstalk this morning that the former Garda Commissioner in fact interfered in an independent process surrounding the protected disclosure? What does she say about that?

I would like to use this opportunity, because I was not aware of the details last night, to wish our colleague, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, well. Any attack on an elected representative is an attack on our democracy. It is something we all need to condemn and push back on. I wish him and his family well. Like a lot of people here, I also watched the documentary last night. It covered a wide range of very serious matters over the past several years. Many of them, as was referred to in the programme, related to protected disclosures and investigations, which are still ongoing, related to matters before the courts, both criminal and civil, and before the WRC and related to and subject to investigations by Fiosrú, the office of the police ombudsman. The Deputy knows for that reason I cannot comment. The reason I cannot comment on any of these matters is that we, as a House in 2014, passed legislation brought to the House by Brendan Howlin, which made it very clear that the legislation would prevent any of us, under law, from commenting on or confirming the existence of or details of any specific protected disclosure. Importantly, the legislation-----

On a point of order, the Minister is aware that these protected disclosures are closed so that does not prevent her from answering any questions, just to be helpful. They waived their anonymity.

To be very clear - the legislation is very clear - while individuals may choose to talk about it, that does not allow us, legally, to talk about it. That is clearly set out in the legislation. Individuals chose to speak about it last night but that does not enable any other person to speak about it. I want to be very clear about that. The legislation was agreed by this House in 2014 and enhanced in 2022. What is really important about the legislation is that it was put in place to allow whistleblowers to come forward and to make sure there was an independent process that took these matters away from politicians, from myself and from anybody in this House, and rightly so. It was decided this would be the approach because of what happened in the past. That is why this legislation was enacted. I fully support it because we have seen over the years many people who have come forward and highlighted issues in the workplace. We should all welcome this. We should protect whistleblowers, make sure people feel they can come forward and when they do that there is an independent process. We also have to respect that process and make sure anybody who is the subject of a protected disclosure is afforded the protection of that independent process as well. The Deputy mentioned my time as Minister for justice. The very first thing I did, the very first time I got into my car to go anywhere as Minister for justice, was to go to Castlerea to meet the colleagues of Detective Horkan, who were understandably devastated, and to meet his family whom I know are still going through an unbelievable trauma they will probably never be able to fully comprehend. I made it very clear at the time that my job as Minister was to make sure that gardaí, in doing their jobs, were protected, had what they needed, that the legislation was in place for them and that we provided the resources for them to make sure they were kept safe. I also introduced changes to make sure the oversight within An Garda Síochána was as strong as it could be. Coupled with that, in 2020, the Garda anti-corruption unit was established in An Garda Síochána. This was to make sure any wrongdoing within An Garda Síochána was dealt with. Through the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024, I strengthened the role of the board and the An Garda Síochána audit committee, which now have statutory roles in overseeing the appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness of procedures in An Garda Síochána dealing with protected disclosures. I also produced the legislation that established Fiosrú and the whole reason for that was to make sure that where complaints were made by gardaí about issues in An Garda Síochána, they would be dealt with more quickly. The process was too slow. There were too many elements to it. It was taking too long and not producing effective results-----

-----so I made sure legislation was put in place to speed up the process. We all want to make sure there is a system in place that protects whistleblowers but we also need to make sure we adhere to the legislation. Finally, I will come back to the last point. There is an opportunity for this legislation to be reviewed. That will come up soon-----

-----and all stakeholders need to be included in it.

With respect, these are really serious matters. The Minister has not answered any of our questions - not one - and this is not the first time. She has dodged questions from other people in the Opposition previously in the Dáil. The first question I asked had nothing to do with the protected disclosure. Why will the Minister not tell the public? Let me read it again. When was the Minister first made aware there was an issue with the holsters? It has been alleged the issue with the holsters resulted in the death of a garda. That has nothing to do with the protected disclosure. It is about the Minister being upfront, honest and transparent about when she, as Minister for Justice, was made aware of it. Second, when was the Minister briefed about the safety concerns regarding the holsters? Why will she not tell us? What is she hiding? On another question I asked, the assistant commissioner admitted on the radio today that there was interference by the former Garda Commissioner in the protected disclosure process. That does not have to do with the protected disclosure itself; it is the process relating to these protected disclosures. What does the Minister have to say about that as a member of the Government and a Minister who was in office-----

-----at the time he was interfering with an independent and autonomous office? It is earth-shattering that An Garda Síochána admitted blatantly on the radio-----

-----that it interfered with the process. I will ask the question again and ask that the Minister stop hiding. When was she first made aware of the issue with the holsters? Will she give the date? When was she briefed-----

-----about the safety concerns? What did she do about it? What does she have to say-----

-----about gardaí at a senior level saying they interfered with the independent process?

Hear, hear.

First, I will not be lectured to by a party whose history when it comes to protecting our gardaí is less than standard.

I have done everything in my role as Minister for Justice to protect gardaí and make sure that when they carry out their duties they have the resources they need and that the legislation is in place to protect them. That is always how I have carried out my work. It is how the current Minister carries out his work and how the Minister before me carried out his work. There is a clear process in place. There is a clear structure in place, which clearly outlines that, where matters are a protected disclosure and where issues are before the courts or other bodies, I am precluded from commenting, as are others, so I am not hiding.

You are hiding. Just answer the question.

No, hold on a second, I am not hiding anything. Let me be clear-----

Is the Minister saying she cannot answer the question as to when she and the Department were first made aware? That is just nonsense.

The Deputy just does not like the answer

There is no answer.

We elected representatives to this House who then passed legislation in 2014. Sinn Féin supported the legislation in 2022, which strengthened-----

How can the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, tell us that you were told in August 2020? How can the Minister for justice tell us that when the Minister, Deputy McEntee, will not tell us herself?

Stop interrupting her.

Okay, I apologise, but this is very frustrating, with respect.

I have been pretty clear in what I have said. It is a matter of public record that An Garda Síochána changed the holsters. It said that clearly. It is also a matter of public record that the Garda Síochána Act 2005 states clearly that procurement or any of the other matters the Deputy outlined are the role and responsibility of An Garda Síochána and that I had no role as Minister for Justice in that.

When were you informed?

It is also clear-----

When were you informed?

It is also clear - and we have done this for a reason - that there is a differentiation between the roles of An Garda Síochána, the actions and roles of the Ombudsman-----

Why will the Minister not tell us when she was informed?

-----and those of me or other Ministers. That was clearly introduced and voted for by this House in 2014 and again in 2022.

Why will she not tell us?

Stop interrupting.

It is ridiculous. It is a simple question.

I join Deputies across the House in condemning yesterday's assault on Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. I wish him a speedy recovery and send best wishes to him and his family. Last night's "RTÉ Investigates" programme was shocking. It showed that the oppressive and vindictive culture that existed when Maurice McCabe was targeted for speaking out has not been rooted out of An Garda Síochána. We heard credible allegations that Garda personnel who raised concerns were isolated, undermined and penalised. Again and again, protecting the institution appeared to take priority over investigating what had been reported. The concerns were not trivial. They included firearms and ammunition being stored in appalling conditions, warnings about unsafe holsters being ignored, the refusal to technically examine the holster worn by Detective Garda Colm Horkan when his firearm was taken and used to murder him and alleged interference with a protected disclosure file concerning a shotgun which disappeared from Garda custody and was returned to criminal hands. Most extraordinary, the people working in the Garda office responsible for protecting whistleblowers became so disturbed by what they witnessed that they became whistleblowers themselves. Deputy McEntee was Minister for Justice while much of this was happening. A new Garda protected disclosure office became operational on 6 January 2025. The establishment of that office was public knowledge, but the public announcement said nothing about what was happening to the existing office. We were not told its permanent and experienced personnel were being excluded, that outstanding confidential files were being transferred to a new team or what safeguards were being put in place to protect the continuity and confidentiality of those files. This restructuring was directed by the former Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, so my question to the Minister is precise. Before the change took effect, was the Minister or her Department told the existing personnel would be removed from the office and that their outstanding protected disclosure files would be transferred to a new team? If she was told, what questions did she ask? Did she seek assurances that those files would be protected and no member of staff would be penalised for raising concerns? If she was not told, does she believe the former Garda Commissioner complied with his statutory obligation under section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act to keep the Minister and her Department fully informed of significant developments capable of damaging public confidence in An Garda Síochána? Operational independence gave the Commissioner control of the decision. It did not release him from his duty to account for it or to keep the Minister fully informed. The Taoiseach yesterday suggested he could not comment because these matters involved protected disclosures, as did the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade today, but confidentiality protects the whistleblower, not the Government or senior Garda management, from having to account for their failings. This is not about revealing the context of any disclosure. It is about whether the system established to protect whistleblowers was purposefully undermined. I do not think anyone who watched the RTÉ documentary last night decided we could continue as we are. What measures does the Government intend to take to ensure this is investigated thoroughly? Not a single person here believes we can just revert the investigation of these disclosures to Garda management. What does the Government intend to do about it? What exactly was the Minister informed of by the former Garda Commissioner Drew Harris about the change in the office personnel?

I thank the Deputy. There are two parts to what he asked. One is the matter of a protected disclosure and that is the information given by the individual last night. As I said, it is for individuals to disclose what they have disclosed, but it is not for me to discuss it. The matters discussed last night about the office, as the Deputy mentioned, are clearly, as was set out, the subject of an ongoing investigation, so it is not for me to comment on them. That is set out clearly in the 2014 Act. My understanding of the new unit in An Garda Síochána was that it was a move to enhance the unit. I note it was in January 2025. An election had taken place in November 2024 and there was a change soon after that, but that change in the unit was to move it from being a part-time unit to a full-time unit and to ensure the garda of most senior rank was an inspector, which was not the case before that. That was clearly the intention in establishing a new unit. I am afraid I was not party to whether people transferred over. It is not information I am aware of, but the whole intention of establishing a new unit in 2025 was to enhance it, put it on a permanent footing and make sure the most senior rank in it was inspector, which had not been the case previously. It is important for me to stress that there is an onus and obligation on each of us in this House, particularly given what we saw in the past, which was the reason for introducing legislation in 2014 and for enhancing it. It is why at the end of this year a review will start to look at the legislation, whether it is operating effectively and whether there are things we need to change. I encourage and suggest, particularly after last night, that all of us and the stakeholders involved in this need to make sure representation is made to that review because we need to make sure legislation we enact, which has put this into an independent process away from the political system, as it should be, is operating as effectively as possible. When you put something at arm's length from the political system, you need to make sure it is operating effectively, as it should be, while maintaining that independence. I do not think any Minister for justice should have a role in a protected disclosure. No Minister for justice should be the investigator in something that is brought forward. I do not think anybody in this House believes they should. We now have an opportunity to review the legislation. I believe it has worked effectively. Again, I commend the many people who, despite great personal impact on their own lives and the lives of their families, have come forward to highlight issues, not just in An Garda Síochána but also in other workplaces. That is the importance of the legislation. It is not just about An Garda Síochána but An Garda Síochána is quite literally charged with protecting people in this country and with the security and protection of this State. We need to make sure the structures within An Garda Síochána are such that, if people are not doing things correctly, there are repercussions. We need to make sure there are oversight structures in place. As I have outlined, many such structures and oversight mechanisms were introduced when I was Minister for Justice and many have been followed up on by the current Minister.

Again, I did not ask the Minister whether she was informed of the details of any protected disclosure. We know that section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act requires that the Commissioner inform the Minister for justice if there are incidents happening that have the potential to undermine public trust in the office. Public trust has been very clearly undermined by any number of issues captured in last night's RTÉ documentary. Those charged with looking after whistleblowers, taking on their files and investigating their claims had to become whistleblowers themselves and were then removed from the protected disclosures office. Does the Minister not believe that is an issue worthy of the former Commissioner, Drew Harris, informing her of as the office was changing over? Does she not feel such an issue was incorporated into that Act? Is she satisfied that the information she was given was enough? This goes to the heart of ministerial accountability and Ministers' role of informing Parliament. It is very clear that there was a gross failure and that people were being penalised. What exactly did Drew Harris inform the Minister of when he was making this change?

I know I sound like I am repeating myself but it is important to say that the Act very clearly states that, under the law, it is not an option to comment on or confirm the existence or details of any specific protected disclosure. What the Deputy is referencing, what was highlighted last night and what was spoken of by individuals clearly suggests that is what is being talked about here. I am not trying to be evasive. I am trying to be very clear. Legislation was enacted that very clearly precludes my commenting on the matter. As for the office itself, I was not aware of how the structure was changing or what individuals were or were not being carried over. That is not something that was brought to my attention because it is a matter for An Garda Síochána. The 2005 Act very clearly sets out the roles and responsibilities of An Garda Síochána. My role as Minister for Justice at that time was to make sure that we strengthened oversight mechanisms where we needed to. To refer specifically to Fiosrú, individuals made a complaint, the complaint went to the ombudsman that existed then and it then went through a process of criminal investigation that might have come to an inconclusive answer. Those individuals then had to start at the beginning and potentially go through a civil process. It took a long time and nobody was getting answers. The process was protracted and was not working effectively. That is why Fiosrú was introduced. It was to ensure we would have a quicker, more efficient and more effective process. That was my priority and focus as Minister for Justice. I again stress that, at all times, no matter what was going on, I adhered to and followed the rules, regulations and legalities of the 2014 and 2022 Acts. That was my responsibility as Minister. I took it very seriously and still do. I have always adhered to the rules in that regard.

We will look into that. I want to be associated with the Minister's comments about Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. I am thinking of him, his family and his supporters in south Kerry, many of whom I know very well. Deputy Doherty raised the question of when the Minister first knew about the holster issue. I have the answer. It took three attempts before the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan's Department would tell me, but we now know it was August 2020. It is shocking that it took three attempts. The whole country is talking about last night. This does not give me any pleasure. Everyone in this House knows that I have been raising these issues for years. It does not give me any pleasure to stand here today to say what I have to say. Luke, Brian, Donal and Rose are incredible people. They are real honest people. Many of these revelations are not new, by the way. There is a man sitting up there in the press gallery, John Lee, who has written about this for years. So has Mick Clifford. They deserve great credit. There are so many layers to this programme and so many issues that have not been covered but the Minister should not worry; we will cover them in this Chamber over the weeks, months and years to come. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, as the sitting Minister, will have to answer for how An Garda Síochána and his Department acted. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, will also need to outline to the House what she did. I am not talking about the details of the individual protected disclosures. I am interested in process and pathways. Brian O'Reilly sent the Minister his protected disclosure in September 2023 as it impugned the then Commissioner. That was the correct thing for him to do because it was about the Commissioner. The Minister sent it to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner later that month. That was also the correct thing to do. In October 2023, the OPDC sent its statutory direction that the Secretary General of the Minister's Department be appointed to investigate this. The Secretary General made no objection to this. That is where it sits. What happened next was detrimental to Brian O'Reilly's life, his career, his livelihood and the well-being of him, his wife, his children and his family. As Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee directed that the investigation be removed from her Secretary General and redirected to An Garda Síochána, thereby usurping the OPDC's statutory direction. Giving such direction is that office's role. We in this party know the legislation. Deputy McEntee, as Minister for Justice, thereby revealed Brian O'Reilly's identity, depriving him of the legal protections he was entitled to and exposing the nature of his allegations. In doing so, she acted without legal authority and directly interfered with a serious and significant protected disclosure. She did exactly what the Taoiseach spent all day yesterday lecturing us about, telling us that it would be completely and utterly inappropriate. How does the Minister explain this? It was either done deliberately - to be fair to her, I actually do not think it was - or it was just incompetence or a mistake. Everybody in here is talking about this. On 25 March this year, I told this Chamber that the issue of the holsters, one of which I am holding now, and how the Minister handled protected disclosures would haunt this Government, the Minister herself and the previous Government. Last night's programme absolutely confirmed that to be the case.

I will start where I finished in answering the last question. In my role as Minister for Justice, at all times and on any matter, I adhered to the law and the structures we have to adhere to under this Act and legislation. The Deputy can look elsewhere, shake his head at me or say that I was incompetent or whatever it is he was trying to suggest.

I did not shake my head.

That is exactly what he has suggested. I have adhered to the legislation at all times. At all times, I ensured that I everything I did in the Department was to ensure accountability and oversight, even at times when that did not make me popular, which happened quite a lot. How did we make sure there were better structures in place? It was by introducing new legislation, putting in place better oversight mechanisms within the board of An Garda Síochána, making sure the audit committee had oversight of what happened on protected disclosures and introducing Fiosrú so that we would have better protection for those who brought forward protected disclosures. We also amended the 2014 legislation introduced by Deputy Kelly's former party leader. All of this was to make sure that, where people brought forward protected disclosures, procedures were adhered to and that those people were protected, encouraged to come forward and supported, where possible. I cannot be any clearer in saying that I have always adhered to the rules and the regulations as set out to me. I have always acted in accordance with the law. When it comes to protected disclosures and matters relating to such disclosures that are still before the courts or a tribunal or inquiry, the Deputy will know that this is not something that any of us can talk about. The Taoiseach was very clear about that yesterday. I have repeated that many times this morning. As I have already said, we have an opportunity to review the legislation. There is a legal requirement in the Act to ensure that a review will start by July of next year. I am informed by the Department of public expenditure and reform that this review will start by the end of this year. There is an onus on all stakeholders to participate in that.

I have laid out the facts. I have the documentation here in front of me. I am not interested in the details of the actual disclosures, the pathway and the process. I know what happened here. The Minister will have to explain it, despite everything she has said there, because the way the Brian O'Reilly case was managed by the Minister simply was not appropriate. Most of all though, today, I am thinking of the family of Colm Horkan. I have met them several times, and I know others here have too. They are broken. They are devastated. He should never have been wearing that version of this holster that night. The State let him and his family down. Someone has to stand up for them. Collectively, as a Chamber - Opposition or Government, it does not really matter - we all have to stand up for them. Will the Government - I mean this - finally do the right thing and sanction an independent investigation into everything to do with how faulty holsters like this were given to our brave men and women serving as gardaí across the country? I know that is what the family wants. I know that is what they deserve.

I thank the Deputy. I too have met the family, and not just on that occasion I mentioned. It was the very first thing I did as Minister. I met them subsequently and I know how difficult and traumatic this is for them. I know they never want anybody else to go through that. The death and the murder of any individual is traumatic enough but for this to happen to somebody who is tasked with protecting each and every one of us is reprehensible. We all agree on that. I do not think anything we can do will ever take that away from the family. It is very clear that we have a number of different investigations and processes still under way. That might not suit what people want to say here today but that is a fact. It is the case. There is an obligation on each and every one of us to make sure that any independent investigation is adhered to. Beyond that, and the Taoiseach asked this question yesterday, we must ask ourselves what do we want to do and how do we respond. We have an opportunity to review the legislation to make sure it is acting in accordance but we have to make sure any independent process that is under way is allowed to continue. It might take longer than any of us would like, as is the case in many instances, but we have an obligation to ensure any process under way is allowed to conclude.

Every TD in this House knows Irish Water is not fit for purpose. Every day, an Opposition TD or a Government TD raises an Irish Water issue in this Chamber. Every day, Government and Opposition TDs are on local radio criticising Irish Water. It beggars belief that despite water shortages, hosepipe bans and future and continued scarcity of water due to climate change, Irish Water would decide to close down and decommission a perfectly good water treatment system plant and reservoir. That is exactly what it proposes to do with the Poulavanogue water treatment plant, serving the town of Clonmel. This is one of the plants currently serving the town and has done so for the best part of 100 years. Irish Water also proposes to decommission the Ragwell reservoir, a facility that can hold up to two days water supply for the town. At the same time, it is bringing very hard water into the town. This supply already supplies part of the northern part of the town and has created huge financial problems and pressures for families who are already hard pressed. It damages white goods, electric kettles, dishwashers, washing machines and showers, forcing families to replace these on a regular basis. Many families are being forced to install water softeners at considerable cost and to pay for the maintenance. Now, Irish Water proposes to impose this very hard water on homes and businesses in the town. Irish Water refuses to even consider softening this hard water at source, something which is done routinely throughout Europe and in the United States. Irish Water has also refused to mix the soft water supply at Poulavanogue with the hard water supply from Monroe to reduce the hardness. South Tipperary TDs have asked for copies of the various reports Irish Water have relied on when making these decisions. We have not received those reports. I am asking the Minister to immediately and urgently intervene with Irish Water to stop the closure and decommissioning of the Poulavanogue water supply, maintain the Poulavanogue supply for the purpose of a backup water supply for the town and for mixing with the hard water from Monroe and make available to TDs and public representatives all reports pertaining to the closure of the Poulavanogue supply and Ragwell reservoir. Irish Water must be made accountable on these issues and others. I ask the Minister today to make sure that happens by intervening with Irish Water on these issues.

I thank the Deputy. While I do not have the specific details of the case he outlined, I will bring this and all of the challenges he outlined directly back to the relevant Minister. Unfortunately, we still have a number of communities that are impacted by water infrastructure, much of which is decades old. It is important that the Government ensures that the significant amount of funding we have put directly into Irish Water is invested in communities and spent as quickly as possible and that the upgrades to our water facilities, treatment plants, piping and infrastructure that is decades old happen as quickly as possible. From July of this year, Uisce Éireann marked a commitment to invest in the reimagined water infrastructure right across Tipperary, the Deputy's county. There was a €16 million upgrade in the Rossadrehid water treatment plant, the construction of which is now under way and will provide a safer, more reliable water supply for homes and businesses right across the region, originating in the Galtee Mountains. It is obviously an important source of water for the plant and it provides services to thousands of homes and businesses across the region. This is about making sure every part of the county has access to that type of supply of water. It is about making sure the investment and significant funding that have been provided by the Government, through the national development plan and directly to Uisce Éireann, is invested as quickly as possible and people see the benefit. One of the biggest challenges we have, and I see this in my county as well, is that our population has grown very significantly in a short space of time. It is about making sure we can keep up with that growth, keep up with the delivery of houses and make sure that, at the same time, we are not just investing in new infrastructure but also replacing old and outdated infrastructure, in particular. The specific issue the Deputy raised is one that many people deal with in their communities. There is then the impact it has on their appliances, which means they have to change them or invest in softeners. That is a frustration and something people do not need to deal with. That is why we are investing this significant amount of funding overall. On the specific cases the Deputy mentioned, I am happy to bring them back to the Minister to see if more can be done to speed up the process and address the concerns raised by the Deputy's constituents.

Irish Water is an unaccountable quango. It has absolutely no respect for TDs or public representatives. Every TD in this Dáil can speak directly to every Government Department, including every section in the Department of Social Protection. TDs can contact county council staff at management, engineering and administrative level. They can speak with HSE staff at all levels. They can talk to Garda officers at local and national level. In fact, every TD in this House can speak directly to any organisation that deals with the public. Why is Irish Water different? Why does Irish Water refuse to deal directly with elected public representatives? That is the case. There is no way Irish Water will speak directly with Members of this House or members of local authorities. Why is Irish Water the only organisation that does this? We are elected democratically and Irish Water should be available to every TD in this House through a nominated local official who can deal with issues arising locally and nationally. I ask the Minister to intervene directly with Irish Water in relation to stopping the closure and decommissioning of the Poulavanogue treatment plant in Clonmel.

I fully agree with the Deputy. Irish Water should be and is accountable to every single person in this House.

No, it is not. That is the problem. It is not.

There is a process in place and it should be the case that the Deputy can access and can talk directly to people. I am not saying that it is working effectively; it is clearly not if the Deputy is raising this here.

We get put talking to a call centre.

However, it is absolutely essential that an organisation that has been provided with €12 billion, as it has been in a revised national development plan, and that has been provided with billions of euro to support the delivery of homes and to invest in our capital infrastructure is accountable to every person in this House.

It should be but it is not. We can only call and talk to a call centre.

It is frustrating.

I am agreeing with the Deputy. I am saying very clearly it should be the case. Deputies should not be standing up here saying that they cannot access or engage with people. I will again raise this directly with the Minister. We have spoken of it. I have spoken of it. My party colleagues have spoken of it. Any organisation that receives billions of euro of taxpayers' money from the Government should be and is accountable to every Member in this House. It is not acceptable if the Deputy is not able to access, talk directly to or get answers from people. I fully agree with him. I am very happy to raise the concerns he has raised here today. I am very happy to relay that back to the Minister. I expect that, as a public representative, I should be able to speak to and engage with officials on the ground when it concerns billions of euro of taxpayers' money and I am elected as a people's representative to monitor where that goes. I fully agree with the Deputy and I will raise his concerns directly.