Tá Fianna Fáil agus Fine Gael ag brú ar aghaidh lena bplean náireach fáil réidh leis an nglas triarach agus deireadh a chur le neodracht na hÉireann. Má tá an Taoiseach muiníneach go dtacaíonn muintir na tíre lena phlean, ba chóir dó é a chur faoi bhráid an phobail i reifreann.
In 2013 here in the Dáil the Taoiseach said the triple lock, which is the requirement to have a mandate from the UN, the Government and the Dáil for the deployment of Irish troops, was the core of our neutrality. Why is he now pushing ahead with his plan to dismantle Irish neutrality? Tomorrow he wants to force through his Bill to abolish the triple lock and he wants to shut down debate here. He wants to force the Bill through because he does not want proper scrutiny of this legislation and the consequences of a Bill which, if passed, will fundamentally move Irish foreign policy away from neutrality and towards military entanglement, and away from peacekeeping and towards military adventurism.
We know what is at stake here. Scrapping the triple lock opens the door for Ireland to be dragged deeper into EU military structures aligned with NATO strategy. The triple lock is core to our neutrality. It is a strength that has allowed Ireland to be a credible voice for peace and diplomacy for generations, to use our experience of colonisation and oppression to always speak up for justice and to champion a better world in a way that is unequivocally, unapologetically and powerfully Irish.
Neutrality is not only a policy; it is deeply connected with the values of the Irish people and who we are. This is why special neutrality protections were given for the Nice and Lisbon treaties. It is why we have the triple lock protection. Now the Taoiseach wants to walk away from these commitments and protections. Piece by piece, with no mandate and without honesty, the Government is dismantling neutrality. The Taoiseach claims he does this because the world has changed and it is now more dangerous and volatile but these are precisely the reasons that defending Ireland's neutrality matters more than ever.
Adherence to international law and the requirement of a UN mandate for the deployment of Irish troops are the safeguards against military adventurism. Dysfunction at the UN must be dealt with by reform and by strengthening the United Nations, but it should not be used as a pretext for scrapping our neutrality. The Irish people want no part of the military might-is-right agenda where international law is repeatedly shredded, with catastrophic consequences, and where the European Union now pours hundreds of billions of euro into an arms race. Our neutrality keeps Ireland outside this dangerous military race to the bottom. It allows us to speak for freedom, human rights and justice, and to uphold the vision and possibility of a better, safer world.
The Government's attempt to abolish the triple lock is an enormous step. It is literally inconceivable that any Taoiseach or Government would push ahead with this without first seeking the permission of the Irish people, because Irish neutrality belongs to the people, not to any Government. If the Government is intent on abolishing the triple lock, it must have the permission of the Irish people. It must put this question to a referendum and let the people have their say.
Tuesday 20 October 2026
Leaders' Questions
134 contributions, as the Official Report records them.
Hear, hear.
Ar dtús báire, ní aontaím leis an Teachta in aon chor. Nuair a fheiceann tú siar ar stair na hÉireann, go háirithe nuair a bhuamar ár neamhspleáchas, is léir gurb é an téama is mó a thagann amach ná cé chomh dílis is atáimid sa tír seo maidir le cúrsaí síochána, coimhlintí ar fud an domhain a réiteach agus a bheith páirteach i misin síochána ar fud an domhain. Is é sin an téama is mó atá le feiceáil, go háirithe in an-chuid tíortha san Afraic, sa Liobáin agus in a lán áiteanna eile. Níl an méid atá á rá ag an Teachta fíor in aon chor. Ní bheidh aon athrú air. Níl ár dtír ag lorg aon choimhlint. Nílimid ag lorg aon chogadh.
Fág é mar atá sé, mar sin.
Tá sé áiféiseach ar fad é sin a chur san áireamh. Is é sin atá á dhéanamh ag an Teachta McDonald agus ag daoine eile. Fundamentally, peacekeeping has been one of the great manifestations of Ireland's outreach to the global world. It is not the only one, but by any yardstick it is one of our most significant commitments to the rule of law and to many marginalised people in conflict and humanitarian crises all over the world. The idea that we are about to abandon that is outrageously hyperbolic.
Hear, hear.
There is no balance to what Deputy McDonald is saying. She uses language such as "military adventurism" and "military entanglement".
We are just repeating your language back to you.
Answer the question.
Who is going to engage in military adventurism? Does Deputy McDonald think Dáil Éireann is? Does she think an Irish Government is?
Yes, it would.
I do not take lectures from the Deputy on the conduct of foreign policy.
He is good at giving them.
I have been Minister for foreign affairs on two occasions. I invite the Deputy to go back over my record and my engagement from 2007 onwards.
Frank Aiken, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party-----
A south Armagh man.
-----was an architect of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was an extraordinary Minister for External Affairs. Fianna Fáil does not take lectures from Sinn Féin, and neither does Fine Gael nor any other member of the Government, a party that once supported Nazism during the Second World War.
Ah, go away out of that.
That is an outrageous slur.
What did De Valera do after Hitler passed away? He sent condolences on the death of Hitler.
But you did.
The Fianna Fáil party leader-----
You cannot take it.
Taoiseach, I am sorry. Please, Deputies.
When Éamon de Valera-----
These are facts.
Please allow the Taoiseach to respond. I call the Taoiseach, please.
I am sorry, but I am not going to be shouted down.
Nobody is going to be shouted down.
The Deputy's leader got her time. Now, allow the Taoiseach to respond.
The Taoiseach-----
End of. Allow the Taoiseach to respond.
The Taoiseach-----
The Taoiseach does not even know the history of his own party.
Deputy Ó Broin, please. Your leader will respond to the Taoiseach. It is Leaders' Questions.
She absolutely will.
When Éamon de Valera affirmed the policy of Irish neutrality during the Second World War, Sinn Féin leaders colluded with the Hitler regime-----
Ah here-----
Not true. It is not factually true.
-----and Seán Russell was the key person.
It is simply not true. It is utter-----
The Sinn Féin party leader, Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, unveiled a statue to Seán Russell. How dare the Deputy lecture me about Irish neutrality?
He has not an inch of credibility in respect of it-----
Talk about revisionism.
-----nor has the Deputy's entire party, because, for a long time-----
Please co-operate with the Chair.
Talk about revisionism. The Taoiseach does not even know the history of his own party.
For a long time, Sinn Féin saw-----
What a disgrace.
Through the Chair, please.
-----any conflict Britain was involved in as Ireland's opportunity, right beyond World War Two. Therefore, it could not have given a continental about Irish neutrality for many, many decades. Furthermore, I would say this: I was in the House when Russia-----
Answer the question. What has changed about the triple lock? The Taoiseach should answer the question.
Russia has changed fundamentally.
Avoiding the question, as always.
Russia has changed. Again, the Deputy does not want to hear it.
Avoiding the question, as always.
Fundamentally, what his party is now saying is that Russia, which, on a daily basis, is bombing the civilians of Ukraine, should have a veto-----
Nonsense.
-----on Irish participation in peacekeeping.
Absolute nonsense.
Oh, God, the Taoiseach is so defensive.
Answer the question.
We also know that the Lebanon UNIFIL mission-----
Ask the people.
-----is about to end, with no prospect of our participation in it-----
Calm down.
I call Deputy Mary Lou McDonald. I thank the Taoiseach. His time is up.
-----because of the US decision not to support the continuation of peacekeeping in Lebanon.
I thank the Taoiseach. Deputy McDonald is on her feet.
And a referendum?
We should be in control of our own destiny when it comes to participation in peacekeeping missions.
Deputy McDonald is on her feet. I thank the Taoiseach. His time is up.
The people should be in control.
I call Deputy McDonald.
Is fíor go bhfuil siad ag iarraidh ár neodracht a scriosadh. Sin an rud atá á gceist againn inniu. The idea of abandoning our neutrality is absolutely outrageous. The Taoiseach is quite correct. The triple lock remains at the core of our neutral position. The Taoiseach was quite correct to state that in 2013 but what we are now seeing is a very dangerous political sleight of hand. The Government is attempting to force through, by means of a guillotine, legislation that will have the most profound consequences for the positioning of this country for generations to come. Frank Aiken was an outstanding man, an outstanding Irish patriot, an outstanding south Armagh man-----
And a member of Fianna Fáil.
-----and fair play to him. He carried the torch for what was right for this country. For many decades, the Taoiseach's party did defend neutrality but it has moved away from that.
The Taoiseach should respond now.
I am simply advancing to the Taoiseach the idea that a matter of this importance must be put to a referendum, and the Irish people, not the Taoiseach, must make this call.
Hear, hear.
The Irish people want us to continue to participate in peacekeeping. The bottom line is that the amended legislation-----
The Lisbon and Nice treaties. That is the message-----
I am sorry but I did not interrupt. Why can the Deputies not allow people opposite to speak?
Hear, hear.
That is the essence of parliamentary democracy.
Stop calling them Nazis here-----
The Nice treaty-----
The point I was making is this: if this legislation does not go through, we will not be in a position, for example, if we wanted to have some participation in Lebanon, to be a voice, to be there as a witness to what is transpiring.
That is a red herring.
Allow the Taoiseach to continue.
Nonsense.
In other areas as well, we would simply not be able to do so. Why? It is because the party opposite and others would prefer Russia to have that decision-----
No.
Nonsense. We want the people to decide.
-----or the US, or indeed China. The world has changed dramatically.
Fianna Fáil has changed. That is for sure.
I know Sinn Féin does not want us to support Ukraine. It did not want us to allocate €90 billion for Ukraine to defend itself. That is where it is.
Bring that debate to the people and I will have it with the Taoiseach in the full public gaze.
It was the same when the Russians invaded Crimea. I, for one, and I think the vast majority of people, want us to be involved in peacekeeping. Our military forces want to be involved in peacekeeping.
Then put it to the people.
I call Deputy O'Callaghan.
What Sinn Féin is endeavouring to do-----
The Taoiseach is scared of democracy.
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan is on his feet.
He is scared of the view of the people. Shame on him.
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, please.
Last month, a man who was alleged to have threatened to rape and kill his former partner was allowed to cross-examine her in court. This is a man who was accused of trying to kick in her front door and break into her home while young children were present. He is accused of sending her an image of a handgun and saying he would rip her teeth out with pliers and stick a gun down her throat. He was allowed to cross-examine this terrified woman because no solicitor was available to represent him.
On Friday, a woman who had taken out a barring order against her son was verbally abused by him as he cross-examined her. The man had to be removed from court by prison officers. This woman had to sit in court while a man she lived in fear of harangued and abused her. This woman, who had shown immense courage by taking out the barring order and going to court, has been utterly failed.
Yesterday in the Central Criminal Court, half of the rape and serious sexual assault cases due to go on trial were adjourned because of the dispute. Six of the 13 cases were affected. These vulnerable complainants are now in limbo. They have no idea when these cases will be heard. This is not the first time this has happened. Back in July, the Social Democrats’ leader, Deputy Holly Cairns, raised this very issue with the Taoiseach. She told the Taoiseach that just two out of the 12 rape cases in the Central Criminal Court were able to proceed. Most of them were adjourned because of this row between the Minister and solicitors, and nothing effective has been done since then to resolve this.
I do not need to tell the Taoiseach how difficult it is for victims of rape and sexual assault to come forward and how few of these cases are prosecuted. It is a scandal and outrage that this disruption is being allowed to continue. The open warfare between the justice Minister and solicitors has to end. Victims of crime are being caught in the crossfire. Both sides need to talk to each other. The last time the Minister met with the Law Society was in July. Today, hours before his justice committee appearance, he sent a letter saying he is open to a meeting. The Minister is treating this dispute like it is a game. It is now time for the Taoiseach to intervene and show leadership. There is no good reason not to. He did so with the public sector dispute last week, and he needs to do it again now. He needs to step up, take action and protect victims of crime from further trauma. Will the Taoiseach show leadership and personally intervene to ensure this dispute is resolved?
I thank the Deputy for raising a very important issue. In my view, the cases he raised are harrowing. I have, perhaps, a slightly different perspective to the Deputy in that I think solicitors should attend those cases. The dispute, and the nature of it, does not justify the absence from such cases. That is my perspective.
I also put it to the Deputy that, perhaps, he and others in the Opposition should show some leadership on this issue. For years, people have questioned and complained about the absence of reform within our legal system and our legal service. People have raised serious issues at various committees, in the public accounts committee and everywhere, about value for money. To go back nearly 20 years ago to early on when the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was established, where did the attack come from to undermine that, which continues to this very day? It came from the legal profession. I do not say that with any joy, but that is the reality. That was a reform to deal with personal injuries.
From looking at the Department of justice’s review of the old system of criminal legal aid, which necessitated the reforms the Minister introduced, it appears to me that it raised serious issues. The review highlighted, for example, more appearances and longer trials due to an appearance-based fee structure. That is at the kernel. This is, fundamentally, a money dispute. Multiple payments were being granted for no stated reason and multiple solicitors were being assigned to the same defendant for charges heard on the same day, resulting in multiple payments for the same case. These are serious issues that, collectively in this House, we should be engaged with, rather than saying that it is all the Minister’s fault and that no one else has any contribution to make to what represents a more sensible reform of the legal system, with better value for money for the taxpayer who is paying for it.
The investment that has taken place is quite significant. Criminal case volumes in the District Court have decreased over the years but the expenditure on criminal legal aid in the District Court has increased from about €19 million in 2015 to over €41 million in 2025. The Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, has introduced an 8% increase in criminal legal aid fees payable to the solicitors and barristers in the Circuit Court and higher courts from 1 July 2026. That represents the total restoration of the criminal legal aid fees cut under FEMPI. So, it is very regrettable. I believe it to be unnecessary that some solicitors are choosing to withdraw their services. The overall budget for the-----
Thank you, Taoiseach. I call Deputy O'Callaghan to respond.
-----legal area has increased dramatically also.
This is not reform; this is chaos that has been created. Why has the Minister for justice not met with the Law Society, given how serious this is? Since July there have been no meetings. Only now is he saying that he will meet it. Why has he let this go on for so long? What is the Taoiseach going to do about this? Surely he agrees that what has happened and what people have been put through - people who have gone through hell are now being retraumatised - is not acceptable. Is he going to intervene to stop this happening any more? There is a role for him; he is the Taoiseach of the country. What has happened to people is utterly unacceptable and I am sure he can agree about that. What is he going to do? This cannot keep on dragging on. We cannot have people, who have gone through hell, being put through more trauma in the courts. It has to stop. Will the Taoiseach stand up and do something about this?
First of all, I support the Minister's reform initiative. That is the first point. I would make the point that more than 3,385 certificates have issued. These are invoices for payment for legal aid, with an approximate value of €1.7 million since 1 July. That just represents payments for the District Court alone. There has been ongoing engagement. The Minister met with the Law Society twice. There have been further meetings between officials in the Department of justice, the Minister, the Law Society and the Bar Council in relation to the changes to the criminal legal aid fee structure. The Minister wrote to the president of the Law Society today to indicate that he is happy to engage on any minor changes required to the new scheme, particularly in the area of the children's court. The Minister has already changed aspects of the scheme since it was first introduced. He has increased the flat fee from €455 to €520. He has agreed to split the payment of the fee and has confirmed that separate and distinct cases appearing for the first time on different days would attract a new legal aid certificate for the same accused person.
Just one note of caution - there is competition law around all of this too, in terms of who has responsibility collectively to represent any groups-----
Thank you, Taoiseach. The time is up. Deputy Bacik is next.
It is a point that people should not lose sight of either.
For victims and survivors of domestic violence and sexual offences the experience of undergoing a criminal trial and being subject to cross-examination as a witness in a criminal trial as a complainant has been described as a second victimisation. Even more deeply traumatising is where the cross-examination is not carried out by a lawyer but by the defendant - the accused or the alleged abuser - in person. That is why we were all so shocked last week to hear about the horrendous ordeal of the woman complainant in the District Court whose partner had allegedly threatened to rape and kill her in the most graphic and horrendous terms. He was unrepresented legally in court due to the criminal legal aid dispute and he subjected her to personal cross-examination in the court room. For any complainant in a case like that to have to face the accused in person across the court is unthinkable. My heart goes out to her and to all of those victims, survivors and complainants who have been affected by the withdrawal of legal representation, including those whose cases were adjourned yesterday in the Central Criminal Court.
These cases illustrate the sharpest impact of the criminal legal aid debacle, a crisis in the courts that is the direct creation of the justice Minister. Despite his insistence that his new criminal legal aid scheme is working, the courts are at a standstill. There is chaos since he introduced the change in July and that is the reality. It is a change he justified by relying on statistics showing a high rate of adjournments. He ploughed on with this, even when it was pointed out that the law requires an adjournment in many criminal cases and that adjournments are given very frequently where the State is running late and has not yet served the book of evidence. Now the worst impacts of this stalemate are being felt by the most vulnerable people involved in the system.
The Minister calls the latest withdrawal of criminal solicitors unnecessary and regrettable. It is deeply regrettable but he appears to be in denial about his own role in escalating this situation. Yesterday he said, when asked, that he was happy to tweak the new regulations. Why has he not acted before now to defuse matters? He has not met the Law Society since 27 July. He has just sent a letter at 1 p.m. today to the Law Society saying that he will engage with it, which is very little, very late.
It is cynical.
It is very cynical. We saw the same pattern in the public sector pay dispute with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, waiting for strikes to bring the country to a halt before committing to meaningful engagement and the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, similarly waiting for escalated action. This has become the modus operandi of Fianna Fáil in government. Ignore the warnings, dismiss concerns, engage in denial and only engage meaningfully when crisis is reached while denying all responsibility.
This will only get worse. Vulnerable people are at risk. Victims of crime cannot be collateral damage in a proxy war between Jim O'Callaghan and the Law Society or indeed, a proxy battle for the leadership of Fianna Fáil. We are seeing one arm of the State, this Government, effectively hamstringing another, our justice system.
Will the Taoiseach take responsibility for the actions of a Minister in denial and instruct the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, to engage meaningfully with the legal profession to ensure that vulnerable people in the justice system are protected?
As I said, I support the reforms. Not once has the Deputy mentioned the need for reform. Not once has she said there is an onus and a responsibility on solicitors either. She referenced cases that are indeed harrowing and horrific. I put it to her that in such serious cases, solicitors should attend. The substance of this dispute does not justify solicitors not attending the cases she has movingly and eloquently articulated. That is my position.
The Deputy has said a number of things are not correct. First, the Minister has an obligation to act when a report and review indicate a significant need for reform. It has always struck me over the years that the most difficult area in which to implement reform is the legal arena. There are always plenty of defenders in the House of that particular area. I believe a legal system is vital to our democracy. A criminal justice system is vital to our democracy. However, that does not mean it is immune from reform initiatives. We need reform in this area.
As I said, the review highlighted significant issues. For example, it showed that cases with criminal legal aid took an average of 313 calendar days to complete, compared with 133 days for cases without. These are significant issues and governments have an obligation to do reform. Investment and reform come together. The weighted average appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five while the weighted average appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just over three. Deputy Bacik wants the Minister to just ignore that. She has not referenced that at all. She said it is all the Minister's creation. On another day, if the Minister ignored a report, others would come into the House and ask why he left that report sitting on his desk.
I genuinely make the point that we need reform in this area. The Minister did change. The Deputy is saying he did not make any changes or whatever. He increased the flat fee from the original €455 to €520. He agreed to split the payment of the fee. He confirmed that separate and distinct cases appearing for the first time on different days would attract a new legal aid certificate for the same accused person. He has written to the Law Society indicating that, particularly in the context of children's court, he is prepared to make further changes. I do not want to make the thing more complicated but there is an issue around the degree to which the Law Society can represent, and I may be wrong here, solicitors in the collective in terms of the competition authority's perspective on all this and individual entities. Some of these firms have significant turnovers. That needs to be acknowledged. They are entitled to that and to earn a good living. They are entitled to fair earnings and a fair living.
Thank you, Taoiseach. I call Deputy Bacik.
Surely the Government on behalf of the taxpayer is entitled to reform systems to get better value for money.
With respect, of course we support reforms that will make the system run better for everyone involved. However, it is how you carry out the reform that is the point here. The Minister has simply refused to engage and is in denial about the impact of the change, the current debacle and the stalemate. Last week the Taoiseach lectured public sector workers. He is lecturing us today in the Chamber. The reality is that in order to make reforms work you need to engage meaningfully and that is what the Minister has patently failed to do. He has not met the Law Society since 27 July. He has just, at 1 p.m. today, issued a letter to the Law Society saying he will engage. I think he will instruct his officials to engage with the Law Society. That is welcome but it is very little, very late. Meanwhile, the impact is being felt. In June there were 10,300 legal aid certificates issued and a 90% drop the following month at 702. There are real concerns that future prosecutions are being put at risk. Not alone are those currently before the courts facing enormous delays, and impacts if you are a victim, a survivor or a witness who has taken time off work, but there are also future prosecutions and people held in detention.
The Taoiseach to respond.
Just as the Taoiseach eventually engaged meaningfully and was brought to the table last week, let us see engagement that is meaningful now.
First of all, I do not lecture. I am not lecturing the Deputy, and I did not lecture public service workers. Since I came back into Government in 2020, we have expanded-----
What were they striking for?
-----the public service significantly. We have had two national pay agreements. We will have a further national pay agreement following, hopefully, good negotiations that are under way between the public service trade unions under the WRC with the Government under the aegis of the Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Chambers.
In respect of this issue, the Minister has engaged. I have said this to the Deputy already. Just because she keeps on saying the opposite does not mean it is true. The Minister has engaged and he has changed the scheme. He has written to the Law Society as of day again but he also had met it twice, in May and in July, and made changes, and is prepared to make further changes but the essence of the reforms are here to stay because we do owe it to the taxpayer.
The Deputy said she is in support of reform but I had to drag that out of her. The Deputy has made one phrase in four minutes.
We have always said it.
Thank you, Taoiseach.
The Deputy said that she supports reform as well, but not now please, and that this is too good for her in opposition to turn.
Thank you, Taoiseach. I call Deputy Michael Collins.
Deputy Bacik has to take a particular position.
The people of this country are looking on with disbelief. At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, the Government has approved a pay increase of approximately €118,000 for the CEO of Uisce Éireann, bringing his overall remuneration package to almost €392,000. That is more than €2,270 extra every week. That is a 43% increase. The CEO of ESB received a pay increase of almost €92,000, up 29% to €410,000 a year. Bord na Móna's CEO's pay rise of up to €75,000 brings his pay to €300,000. Dublin Bus's CEO pay rise of €60,000 brings it to €260,000. Meanwhile what did the nurse, special needs assistant, teacher, garda and firefighter get? The people on the front line of the country received a pay increase measured on around 1% while semi-State executives receive increases worth tens of thousands of taxpayers' euros. The firefighter who runs into every burning building when everyone else is running out, the nurse working throughout the night in an overcrowded emergency department, the special needs assistant helping a child with additional needs and the garda answering an emergency call are the people who keep Ireland functioning yet this Government tells them there are limits, that affordability matters and that the books have to balance but somehow there is always money available at the top.
Today, petrol costs almost €1.98 a litre, diesel is over €2.14 a litre and home heating oil is around €1.49 a litre. Families feel those costs every day. When they walk into the supermarket, the basics costs more and more. Bread, milk, butter, meat, vegetables and household essentials have all become expensive.
Working families, factory workers, farmers, fishermen, hauliers and pensioners are counting every euro before they fill the car, heat the house or buy the groceries yet while ordinary people are struggling with the cost of living, the Government signs off on a pay rise worth more than €2,200 a week for the head of Uisce Éireann. Which Minister looked at these figures and thought they represented value for money, while communities across the country are still dealing with water infrastructure failures, wastewater capacity problems and inadequate public services? In fact, the sewerage systems are collapsing into our rivers all over the country and Uisce Éireann's CEO gets rewarded with a €118,000 increase a year and is accountable to no one. What message does this send to the ordinary working people of Ireland? From where they are standing, it looks like there is one set of rules for hard-working families, home helps, carers, council workers and rural social scheme, RSS, workers and another set of rules entirely for those at the top. Can the Taoiseach explain to the people of middle Ireland why they are expected to tighten their belts while the Government rewards semi-State executives with pay increases greater than many workers earn in an entire year? Who signed off on this? Did the Taoiseach sign off on it? Did the Tánaiste sign off on it? Did the Independents supporting the Government know about these increases and support them? Who sanctioned these immoral and unpatriotic payments?
Prior to the work of the senior posts remuneration committee, SPRC, in 2025, there had been no systematic review of CEO pay in commercial State bodies since 2011. The issue had not been looked at since 2011 and it was creating issues comparable in terms of recruiting people for these bodies of a particular calibre, experience and expertise relative to what was happening in the private sector.
The Government agreed a framework for the remuneration of CEOs in commercial State bodies based on the findings of a report by the independent SPRC Therefore, an independent body was created and asked to look at this, independently and outside of Government, to ascertain what would be levels of pay for CEOs.
The Government only accepted the findings of the report in part, limiting pay to the market mean of comparable roles. We did not take on board the full recommendations of this independent committee. The Government agreed the introduction of a banded salary structure for CEOs, ranging from their current salary to the market median of the relevant band.
Basically, the report said that we need to have fair, appropriate remuneration as a key element in the recruitment and retention of CEOs of commercial State bodies, which are critical to the State’s future development and economic performance. These are enormous organisations now, with huge budgets, huge turnover and very significant projects under their remit. Over the next five to six years, in particular, Uisce Éireann and ESB - you name them - will be overseeing very substantial investment, delivering very significant projects and managing the funding and financing of those.
That is the issue. The easier, populist political position would be to do nothing, but that in itself would not serve the State either, if the truth be told. We could enter into an era of complete mediocrity in terms of how commercial State bodies would be administered, governed and dealt with. The Government did not come up with these increases itself and it did not decide on them. Ultimately, a decision has to be made in terms of approving them, but the work was done independently of the Government and independently of the relevant Ministers, on balance. That is the background to it.
More broadly, we have systems in terms of the public service and we have national pay agreements. What should happen here is that there should be annual increases, in my view, linked to inflation and so on. It should not have to wait for another decade or decade and a half before an area like this gets reviewed.
The Taoiseach said that independent bodies outside of the Government made a decision and the Government accepted that in part. Is the Taoiseach saying the Government accepted these increases? The Taoiseach is saying that the other side here is saying we should do nothing. I do not agree with that. Everybody deserves an increase, but an increase of €118,000 a year is outrageous. The people of Ireland deserve accountability. They deserve answers. I am not getting them here. What does the Taosieach think these immoral increases to the CEOs of Uisce Éireann, ESB, Bord na Móna and Dublin Bus mean to every hard-working taxpayer in Ireland, to every person on a pension who cannot afford to put home heating oil in the tank, to all those who have disabilities, to those 350,000 who cannot pay their electricity bills and to the highest number of people ever in this country who cannot pay their mortgages? I will tell him what it means. It was simply put to me by a tax-paying woman last night:
If you're not at the top in this country, the only way it pays to exist is to stay in bed. This is no longer a country for the hard-working man and woman.
Again, I ask: was it the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Independents supporting this Government who signed off on this shocking deal for those at the very top?
I would make the overall point that it was decided independently to assess the post, the office or the position, not any individual, because individuals come and go, but for the position at the head of a given commercial State body, what would be a fair increase. The Deputy said there should be increases. This had not been looked at since 2011. In my view, that should not happen again. It should be looked at far more regularly than it has been. We have reduced. By the way, people on higher incomes will pay far more in higher tax, and that is right. We have a very progressive tax system in this country, which is one of the most progressive in Europe, where those on higher incomes get taxed far more than those on middle and low incomes. That is the way it should be, and it will continue that way. We have also done a lot on the cost of living, by the way. Over the past five years in particular, we have intervened significantly every year to try to protect people, including working people. In next year's budget, we have reduced income tax, we have now reduced childcare costs and we have brought in a new cost-of-disability payment. We have taken a lot of measures on the cost-of-living side.
← Back to the rest of Tuesday 20 October
Debate record: official record, fetched 20 Oct 2026
SHA-256 a6d3a2e911d9…
Provenance
View raw