Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Nov 2023

I seek the reinstatement of the new section of the N52 between the N4 interchange at Kilbeggan and the Tullamore bypass. The Kilbeggan to Kinnegad section of the east–west or Dublin–Galway connection was opened in 2005 and the Tullamore bypass was opened in 2009. The next stage of that development was to link the two to assist with regional development. Having completed the east–west connection, the aim was to work on the north–south one between the likes of Mullingar, Tullamore and Portlaoise and across to Roscrea. An added benefit was to be the alleviation of a very dangerous junction at Durrow, where the national school, local church and graveyard are located. At this very dangerous junction, many parents, grandchildren, staff and children take their lives into their hands daily in the mornings and afternoons. Indeed, a recent report published by Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, part of which was published in the Irish Independent on 5 October, noted that many projects had been taken off the table, thus increasing the potential for death and injury. The route was selected in 2009 and a process was entered into at that juncture, but it was withdrawn around 2012. It was a hard pill to swallow but an understandable one considering the state of the public finances at the time. We were glad to have the process reinstated and entered into again after 2016, but we were quite disappointed in latter years, especially in 2022, when, on foot of the local authority having produced a route options report and a preferred route report, there was no subsequent funding. At this juncture, the priority is one of health and safety, with the added benefit of economic prosperity and assistance to the region thereafter. For these reasons alone, I implore the Minister for Transport, when working with TII to agree next year's plan, to reinstate the road.

When the Government was formed, we agreed to have a 2:1 split between public transport and road projects. That was a welcome initiative because many Governments had talked about it without delivering in regard to the progress that needed to be made on public transport infrastructure. However, I did not envisage that this would imply that any Minister taking office would have the authority to disregard the processes and procedures and the great expense incurred by the State in arriving at route options and selecting routes. My imploring of the Minister is from a health and safety perspective. Those who have had great patience over the past 12 or 14 years should be given some sort of solace by way of the Minister committing the necessary funding sought by Offaly County Council to get us back on track. It could even be the year after next before the project could commence, but I am referring to the phases required to confirm the selected route and allow the land to be purchased to proceed in the vein described.

I thank the Deputy. As Minister for Transport, I have responsibility for overall policy and Exchequer funding for the national roads programme. Once funding arrangements are put in place with TII, under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2015, and in line with the national development plan, NDP, the planning, design, development and upgrading of individual national roads comprise a matter for TII in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. TIl ultimately delivers the national roads programme in line with Project Ireland 2040, the national planning framework, and the NDP.

In the current NDP, which was launched in October 2021, approximately €5.1 billion is earmarked for new national road projects through to 2030. This funding will enable improved regional accessibility across the country, as well as compact growth, which are key national strategic outcomes under the national planning framework. The funding will provide for the development of numerous national road projects, including the completion of projects already at construction stage and those close to it, as well as the development of a number of others. The N52 Tullamore to Kilbeggan project is included in the list of projects contained in the NDP.

The fact that the greater portion of the NDP funding for road projects becomes available in the second half of the decade means there was a constraint on the funding available for new projects in 2022 and 2023. However, most national roads projects in the NDP are being progressed. Projects such as the N52 from Kilbeggan to Tullamore, which did not have the required funding to be progressed, remain part of the NDP and will be considered for funding in future years. Allocations for projects in 2024 are being finalised and will be announced in the near future.

The route option selection phase was the subject of public consultation in September 2021, when the preferred route corridor was announced. Some work has been taking place on the finalisation of the route option selection phase. The project remains part of the NDP. The delivery programme for this project will be kept under review for funding in 2024 and future years and will be considered in terms of the overall funding envelope available to TII.

I absolutely agree with the Deputy that the issue of road safety has to be paramount in everything we do in transport. There has been a shocking increase in fatalities in the past two years and we need a variety of measures to address that. The reality of our funding programme is that not all the projects in planning or development, valued at some €100 billion, will be built in the next five to ten years. Bearing in mind these circumstances, I had a meeting with the board of TII some two weeks ago and made the point that we may have to consider immediate interim measures whereby, if there are particularly difficult junctions or sections of road, we can take remedial action to put road safety centre stage. It is something that TII's board and management are going to have to progress.

There are other ways in which we can improve road safety, which is critical. The 2:1 ratio exists for a practical purpose, which is to provide some of the alternative transport solutions, particularly rural public transport. To my mind, the Government is providing the latter. Every week, we introduce a new or enhanced public transport system, the key providers being the Local Link service and Bus Éireann. This, combined with the halving of public transport fares, is proving to be a great success, particularly among younger people. Along with treating, managing and investing in our roads, this is the best way forward to tackle road safety, save lives and, as the Deputy mentioned, improve economic development in every region of the country.

I thank the Minister for being here and for his response and the detail contained within it. I acknowledge the commitment made that despite the lack of funding or progress on this project in 2022 and 2023, it will be considered in the context of the forthcoming allocations for 2024. I again note the role to be played by TII. I note the project's inclusion in the national development plan. I know that it was always going to be in the second part of this decade. I note the commitment within the national development plan to national routes and the funding specifically designated for national routes within the national development plan funding.

I reiterate, however, that this has gone through the preferred route selection stage twice. It is my contention that if it is not funded in next year's allocation, we will be back to the drawing board for the third time. The latter is a cost the State does not need to incur, and that should be taken into consideration. However, nothing trumps the issue of health and safety. TII specifically mentioned this route, this junction and this road in both its deliberations and its report. I contend that it will be the issue that will determine that, not only from a cost perspective but also, and in particular, from a health and safety point of view, it has to be included in next year's allocation. It is not as if next year would involve the funding to construct the road in its entirely; of course not. It will just move on to the next phase and construction might not actually commence until 2025 or 2026. That would be in line with the commitment that was made in the national development plan. However, in order for that to be the case and in order for us not to have to go back to the drawing board and take away another three or four years, it is an imperative that is included in next year's allocation.

I agree with the Deputy that transport safety is the first imperative. As I said, in an environment where we have €100 billion of proposed projects and only €35 billion available, we need to have other interim solutions to address particular risky points or black spots and implement specific design measures at junctions that are particularly difficult. That is what I have argued for TII to do. In addition, on non-national and urban roads, we need to get local authorities to implement the lower speed limits the Government has agreed with real promptness next year. These will be another factor in helping to reduce the number of fatalities and the impact of road accidents.

There is a further issue with prioritisation, and I have been upfront about this. Given that we have so many different projects, the advancement of bypasses and road investment which takes through-traffic out of towns is a real imperative. Let us consider really thriving towns such as Portlaoise, Portarlington, Tullamore and Birr. I could go across every county or constituency represented in this House. There is a clear indication that the improved town centre environment provided by taking out through-traffic is the best mechanism to improve safety but also to improve economic development in the county in question. I have a list as long as my arm of various such projects that are ready to go or that are at various stages of development. For the development of rural areas, the development of towns outside our cities needs to be the counterforce. This is really possible now with remote working and digital hubs combined with rural bus services. That is the real opportunity and that should also be prioritised within our investment programme.

I should have mentioned that this would also advance the project relating to the high cross at Durrow Abbey and the commitment made by the Office of Public Works to advance that offering as an attraction. However, it cannot be progressed while the existing road infrastructure is in place. It is also awaiting progress on this matter. That should also be part of the consideration of the State's commitment to the facility.

A large number of GPs have contacted me on this issue and I have met some of them. What normally happens with GPs in the general medical scheme, GMS, who are in a partnership practice is that the money comes into the practice, it is lodged into the practice account and GPs pay tax on the basis of the salary drawn from the practice. That is under strict guidance of the accountancy practice which has been in place for a long number of years. My understanding is that Revenue has decided that for any GP in the GMS, the income they get under the scheme will be taxed and they will be treated as individuals rather than being members of a practice. This is causing serious problems.

Some GPs aged over 60 have indicated that they do not want this new process in place and are planning to take early retirement. We already have a challenge in getting GPs in many rural areas. Those who are retiring are not being replaced. This is now a disincentive for people to stay in the GMS. Some will withdraw from the GMS or possibly retire as GPs completely. One GP who is in a partnership involving two people summed it up for me. He does 70% of the work on the GMS. Therefore, 70% of the income that comes in for him is under the GMS. His partner only does about 30% under the GMS and the remaining 70% of the work that person does is through private practice. Therefore, he will now get a larger tax liability because of the new Revenue system compared with his partner. This system will not work.

We need to remember that money that comes in under the GMS goes towards running practices and paying salaries. It also covers some of the enormous costs in practices, such as building insurance, professional indemnity insurance, heating, lighting and all of the things that are needed in a practice. All the money that comes in under the GMS goes into a central account. That account is used to pay the expenses of the practice as well as paying the salaries.

I am calling for engagement with the Revenue Commissioners in dealing with this. I understand this may require a change in the one of the Tax Acts in order to accommodate Revenue's concerns. I believe that this needs to be done immediately. GPs are really concerned. The accountancy bodies have identified that up to 91% of GPs will be affected directly as a result of this decision. Those 91% of GPs are in some kind of a partnership where there is a clear set of rules as regards the payment of salaries and also, as a result, the payment of tax. This will now be totally changed and they are not in a position to be able to work under this particular change.

I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael McGrath. The Department of Finance and Revenue have for some time been aware of issues arising from contractual arrangements with the GP community whereby some GPs treat income under the GMS contract as income of a practice in which they are a partner or an employee, rather than income of that individual GP. Revenue issued guidance, a tax note, to tax practitioners through the tax administration liaison committee in July clarifying the correct treatment of GMS income under tax legislation. To allow GPs and practices time to make any necessary adjustments to their arrangements to ensure compliance with the applicable tax code and legislation, the guidance confirms that the transitional arrangements will be in place until the end of 2023.

Revenue will soon publish supplementary guidance on this matter.

Although the guidance is being widely reported as a proposed tax change, it does not, in fact, introduce a change to the tax treatment of GPs. Instead it simply clarifies the existing legal and administrative position.

In accordance with section 58 of the Health Act, a GMS contract is between the HSE and an individual GP. The Department of Finance and Revenue understand that, as such, the HSE does not enter into GMS contracts with a medical practice, whether the practice is structured as a partnership or a company. This means that, as a matter of law, income under a GMS contract belongs to the GP who entered into the contract with the HSE. That position does not change because a GP treats GMS income as the income of a medical practice. This legal position was confirmed in a recent Tax Appeals Commission determination in January 2022.

A GP who holds a GMS contract is, under tax legislation, a chargeable person as regards income arising under the GMS contract and should report that income under the self-assessment system. The GP is entitled to claim a credit for professional services withholding tax deducted by the HSE on GMS payments. There is no legal basis to treat income arising from a GMS contract entered into between a GP and the HSE as if it were income arising under a contract between the HSE and the medical practice in which the GP is a partner or an employee. The approach taken to date has intended to ensure that the tax treatment of GMS income reflects the contractual position. In an effort to find a solution to this issue, discussions have taken place between officials in the Department of Finance, Revenue, the HSE and the Department of Health.

Earlier this week the Minister for Finance signalled his intention to table an amendment on Report Stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2023 to provide that where individual GPs enter into contracts with the HSE to provide certain medical professional services and provide those services in the conduct of a partnership profession with other individual GPs, the income from those professional services can be treated for income tax purposes to be that of the partnership.

It should be noted that because there are a number of business arrangements and models in the GP sector, including partnerships, companies, employees and employers, the proposed amendment would resolve some but not all of the issues arising. There may, however, be scope for the Department of Health and the HSE to examine the issue from a contractual viewpoint as part of their ongoing strategic review of general practice.

I welcome the second-last paragraph of the Minister of State's reply, which states that the Minister intends to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2023. The problem is that all the GPs who signed the contract understood that when they got income under the GMS scheme, it could go into the partnership account. The practitioners are not looking for such income, once it goes into a partnership account, to be treated as company income because of the far lower rate of tax on company income. That is not what is suggested. What they are looking for is that the system that was in place for many years continues. If the legislation needs amending, that would be welcome. GPs want to be entitled to lodge the income they get under the GMS scheme into partnership accounts in order that genuine expenses they incur in running their practices can be paid for out of those accounts.

In fairness to GPs, there is full accountability on the part of all of them as regards compliance with income tax and all the other regulations, whether PRSI, PAYE or whatever else. The important thing now, however, is that they are not penalised for being part of the GMS scheme. That seems to be the message that is going out - that once you are in a GMS scheme you will be penalised and you must pay tax as if all the money coming in is for your benefit, when in most cases it goes into the partnership, paying for the salaries and the other expenses that are incurred in the running of the practice.

It is important that this is brought forward at the earliest possible date in order that we do not have people resigning out of the GMS scheme and do not have doctors retiring three or four years earlier than they should be. Everything must be done to keep the maximum number of GPs in the system. It should be remembered that we have had a 40% increase in population in the past 23 years. We do not have the same increase in the number of GPs. It is therefore important we keep every one of them in every way possible and make sure we do not penalise them for doing their work.

As I outlined, the Minister for Finance intends to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2023 to provide that where an individual GP enters into a contract with the HSE to provide certain medical professional services and provide those services in the conduct of a partnership profession with other individual GPs, the income from those professional services can be treated for income tax purposes to be that of the partnership. I think that is the substance of what Deputy Burke is referring to. That deals with those who are in a partnership.

The core of the issue is a contractual one. The current GMS contract dates back to 1989 and was developed at a time when a significantly large number of GPs functioned as individual practitioners in single-handed practices. Since then, general practice has evolved and a majority of GPs now provide services in the context of a group practice, which is normally established by a partnership. The Minister for Health has confirmed that the strategic review of general practice now under way will examine the current contractual arrangements for the GMS as well as other issues and will propose measures necessary to modernise the contract. In the interim, officials from the Department of Finance, Revenue, the HSE and the Department of Health will continue to examine the matter. It is complex, with no easy, one-size-fits-all solution, as there are a number of business arrangements and models in the GP sector. Revenue is allowing for a transitional period up to 31 December 2023 to assist GPs and medical practices to comply with their obligations under tax law. Further guidance will be issued to assist GPs in applying the correct tax treatment in respect of their GMS income. The Minister for Finance will provide further detail on the matter when he introduces the Report Stage amendment.

Deputy Burke can see from the response that the issue of those who are in a partnership is far more straightforward than where this is done by way of company arrangement. The Minister is dealing with as much as he can at the moment and will have further details when it comes to Report Stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

The Guardian newspaper, based on an investigation by Greenpeace UK, reported last week that leading European agribusiness groups using a manifesto called the Dublin Declaration have been lobbying senior EU officials against recommendations for reduced meat consumption in the bloc's cancer strategy, its sustainability policies and its climate goals. The Dublin Declaration of scientists on the societal role of livestock was launched at Teagasc in October last year. It is a relatively short document that argues for the nutritional, environmental and social benefits of meat-eating, but the document, which presents itself as a declaration of scientists, was in fact written by a cabal of lobbyists with close ties to the livestock industry.

The declaration's launch in Dublin was hosted, as I said, by Teagasc. The agency receives 75% of its funding from the Irish Government and the EU, which helped pay for the event. They contributed €39,000 of the event's €45,000 cost, mainly in the form of travel, accommodation and support for the speakers who attended. To get a sense of the scale of the involvement of the livestock industry in this event and how far from a scientifically objective document the declaration is, the networking event at the conference was sponsored by two industry groups, namely the American Meat Science Association and the North American Meat Institute. The Dublin Declaration was the centrepiece of an addition of the peer-reviewed journal Animal Frontiers, and in November 2022 the EU's leading agrifood groups wrote to the EU Commissioner for Agriculture using the Dublin Declaration to argue against a plan to end public funding for the promotion of red and processed meats.

In January 2023 a delegation for the declaration travelled to Warsaw to present its findings at an event organised by the Polish Beef Association and attended by the Commissioner.

The lead author of the declaration is Mr. Peer Ederer. He is a former McKinsey consultant, who works closely with agribusiness and whose clients include McDonalds and the US meat producer Smithfield. He has described veganism as "an eating disorder requiring psychological treatment". Authors of the declaration include Collette Kaster, chief executive of the American Meat Science Association, which is funded by major meat producers such as Cargill Meat Solutions, Smithfield and Tyson Foods. The second lead author, Frédéric Leroy, is a food science academic in Brussels but also president of the Belgian Association of Meat Science and Technology. He is a regular presence on the meat industry conference circuit and the author of ALEPH2020, an academic-led initiative in support of meat production. Last is Dr. Rod Polkinghorne, who is a self-described "pioneer of the Australian feedlot industry" and who works with meat industry actors.

A State agency in Ireland has been made an utter fool of by industry lobbyists intent on their selfish pursuit of ever-increasing global climate emissions in the name of profit. Teagasc is lending its funding and credibility to a campaign that is undermining efforts to tackle climate change and take science seriously within the EU. Ireland has the second-highest emissions per capita in Europe, and that is driven in large part by our export-oriented agriculture model. It is not what we are eating ourselves but what we export, based in beef and dairy products. Most lobbyists pay the State for access and consideration but Ireland must be in a unique position of paying those same lobbyists €39,000 for the privilege of being manipulated and hoodwinked by an unethical and anti-science industry operative. Teagasc was founded as a research and industry development body. If we cannot rely on the data and scientific objectivity of Teagasc, where does that leave us?

On behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, I thank the Deputy for her contribution on Teagasc’s role in the Dublin Declaration of scientists on the societal role of livestock. Teagasc was established under the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Act 1988, as the national agency with responsibility for the provision of research, training and advisory services to the agriculture and food industry. Teagasc seeks to be professional, independent and scientifically excellent in carrying out its functions. It works in partnership with other organisations and stakeholders across the agrifood sector and actively collaborates with research organisations across the world from individual projects and publications right up to formal alliances and partnerships. The organisation’s overarching strategic goal is: "To make sustainability front and centre of all Teagasc activities" and "To provide scientific leadership and support to Irish farmers and food companies in achieving a sustainable food system."

Teagasc has an important role to play in supporting the Government’s strategy for the development of the agriculture and food industries within the framework of Government and EU policies and priorities. It provides research and training advice in supporting viable and resilient primary producers to enhance the production of safe and nutritious food from animals with a high animal welfare status and from soils with a high health status. Equally, I emphasise that Teagasc research programmes are concerned with addressing the broad environmental sustainability challenges in climate change, water quality, ammonia emissions and biodiversity. Teagasc is marshalling its resources to support the agricultural industry to respond to the climate challenge. Its climate action strategy for 2022 to 2030, Supporting Farmers for Climate Action, sets out an ambitious roadmap to 2030 that will maximise farmer uptake of the existing marginal abatement cost curve technologies through Teagasc’s advisory and education activities.

Teagasc routinely hosts international scientific conferences to bring together the latest science available on a particular topic and facilitate discussions around the science. The outputs from these conferences are published for the public to read and evaluate. Last October 12 months, Teagasc hosted an international summit on the societal role of meat at the Teagasc food research centre in Ashtown. It brought together world-leading experts on the role of livestock farming and meat in: diet and health; society; economics and culture; and a sustainable environment. The agenda included presentations by experts from leading research institutions and universities from across the globe. Teagasc has advised that it did not host the Dublin Declaration of scientists on the societal role of livestock. Conclusions from the summit and evidence reviewed in the summit featured in a peer-reviewed edition of the scientific journal Animal Frontiers in early 2023. Summit attendees with academic and scientific credentials were invited to endorse the evidence base by signing the Dublin Declaration. No companies or organisations could sign the declaration and individuals who signed had to be scientists working in the relevant area.

Teagasc research and knowledge transfer services engage in several joint programmes with various food companies. Industry involvement is clearly visible to all parties and the outputs of these initiatives are communicated in the public domain. Teagasc has contracts in place to ensure that third parties will not have any influence over the publication of outputs. For example, the Teagasc signpost programme demonstrating best practice in reducing greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions on their farms is supported by more than 60 companies and organisations, all of which are committed to reducing GHG emissions from the agricultural sector.

It seems from that statement that Teagasc is disavowing the Dublin Declaration, which is interesting. Nobody, certainly not me, has suggested that the people involved in the declaration were not scientists, only that they are scientists who are fatally compromised. The conflicts of interest that I have read into the record in my initial statement are from Teagasc's briefing document, which was accessed by Greenpeace through a freedom of information request. It seems obvious to me, and certainly to Greenpeace and The Guardian, that Teagasc is well aware that there is a conflict of interest here. I would like to quote what Mr. Ederer, the chief author of the declaration said because while Teagasc has found itself compromised, it has also managed to involve a Minister of State in being compromised. He wrote:

The Dublin summit and the Dublin Declaration was the first piece of utilisable science they have received in all their four years of commission work ... We need high ranking politicians at these launch events. What started the coverage in Ireland is not the brilliance of our science but the fact that we had a minister and a commissioner there.

I do not know what that means but as a legislator and as somebody who is proud to be a public representative in Ireland and who is proud of our belief in science, trust and data, we should find that out. We need to hold Teagasc to account for involving our Minister of State in that.

I reiterate that Teagasc has advised that it did not host the Dublin Declaration of scientists on the societal role of livestock. The conclusions of the summit and evidence reviewed in the summit featured in a peer-reviewed edition of the scientific journal Animal Frontiers in early 2023. Summit attendees with academic and scientific credentials were invited to endorse the evidence. As I said, no companies were involved in that. It is up to those people who wanted to put their name to it to do so after the summit but that process of putting the declaration together and the hosting of that in Animal Frontiers was not done by Teagasc. I agree completely that Teagasc held the international summit from which those conclusions emerged following the summit and it was attended, as the Deputy said, by a Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Heydon. The Dublin Declaration deals with issues and challenges for: livestock and human health; livestock and the environment; livestock and socioeconomics; and the outlook for livestock. As the Deputy indicated earlier, Teagasc hosted the function, the cost of which was approximately €40,000. The declaration emerged subsequent to the summit; it was not overseen by Teagasc at the event. I take on board all of the points the Deputy has made and Teagasc has assured me that as a State agency it has no conflict of interest when it comes to these matters. That is a matter I am sure different people will have different views on but that is its stated position.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this Topical Issue and the Minister of State for being here. I will be sharing time with Deputy Kenny. I was prompted to submit this issue due to an unprecedented level of bus service cancellations in my county over recent weeks. It was particularly acute the week before last when approximately 20% of services on the busy 103 route serving Ashbourne and Ratoath were cancelled. Passengers were encouraged to avoid using the busy NX service from Navan and there was similar chaos on the 109 service from Kells and Dunshaughlin. There was outrage and outcry from the public and from the representatives and I am glad to say there has been some welcome improvement in recent days, although we are a long way off perfection. The mid-term was a help. Bus Éireann has commissioned private capacity to fill some of the gaps and there has been some internal outsourcing from the Broadstone depot to some of the regional depots of the scheduled maintenance of buses.

That is the issue I wish to raise with the Minister. When we asked Bus Éireann and the National Transport Authority, NTA, what was going on and what the problem was, one of the issues raised was the shortage of mechanics, and in Bus Éireann's case the shortage of heavy vehicle and bus mechanics. We have seen the advertisements and the ongoing recruitment campaign. One of the key asks from Bus Éireann was that heavy goods vehicle mechanics would be put on the critical skills list. Is this something the Minister of State is considering and which can be done?

I support Deputy O'Rourke on this issue. I was over with the NTA this morning in Buswells Hotel and it was an issue we discussed. The difficulty in recruiting mechanics and retaining them in all aspects is clearly something that is causing a huge problem across the entire State. It is not just for buses, it is across everything. The car testing services are having the same problems. It is happening everywhere. There needs to be a recognition that we need to get people to come from wherever we can find them to be able to fill these vacancies because it is having a very negative impact on the service we can provide to the public, especially when it comes to our transport services. We heard Barry Kenny from Irish Rail this morning talking about recruiting people to drive trains. It seems that everywhere and for every critical skill we need in the country, we are simply having difficulty in getting them. I am sure the Minister of State will tell me this is a reflection of an economy that is going very well and has full employment. We know that. Nobody is disputing that but the reality is when children want to get to school and they cannot get a bus because we cannot get a driver for it, we have a problem. When we have people who cannot get to work in many parts of the country because there are scheduling problems because they cannot get drivers, and when the existing buses and the fleet cannot be serviced because we have not got mechanics to service them, we really have to do something to resolve that issue. It is time to recognise this. This particular aspect regarding mechanics for buses and heavy vehicles is an issue but there are more issues as well. There needs to be a review of that whole critical skills aspect of issuing permits for people to come to work in Ireland, and we need to do that quickly because we will run into serious problems in providing services for people if we do not.

I am taking this Topical Issue on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Richmond. I thank the Deputies for raising this matter. The employment permits system enables Ireland to supplement domestic skills and labour supply by allowing the recruitment of nationals from outside Ireland and the European Economic Area, EEA, where particular skills or expertise cannot be sourced from within the European Economic Area and where such recruitment may benefit the State's economic or social development. This objective must be balanced by the need to ensure there are no suitably qualified Irish or EEA nationals available to undertake the work and that the shortage is a genuine one. The system is managed through the operation of the occupation lists, namely, the critical skills list in respect of highly skilled professional roles that are in critically short supply in the labour market and the ineligible occupations list for which a source of labour should be available from within Ireland and the EEA. Where a role is not listed on either the critical skills list or the ineligible occupations list, it is eligible for a general employment permit. These are the groups were are discussing here.

To ensure the employment permits system is aligned with current labour market intelligence, these lists undergo regular review guided by relevant evidence, a public and stakeholder consultation, and with the views of the economic migration interdepartmental group and relevant policy Departments. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is progressing work on the current review of the occupations lists which commenced with a public consultation during summer 2023 and submissions received are under consideration. The role of vehicle mechanic is currently on the ineligible occupations list. Seventeen submissions were received from the transport sector with regard to the broader mechanic role, with six of those specifically referencing a requested change of status for HGV and bus mechanics. The Department of Transport has provided observations on these particular submissions and these are currently being taken into consideration.

The Deputies have asked for the matter to be reviewed and considered. It can be seen that the public consultation was completed during the summer, it is being fully examined at this stage, and the Department of Transport is directly feeding into that process. I do not have a date for how soon that will be completed, but I can assure the Deputies that progress is moving very well as part of concluding that process.

Go raibh maith ag an Aire Stáit for that response. It immediately raises the question of timelines and how soon a decision will be made. It is important in advance of that to reiterate the case. I welcome the fact and I am not surprised at all that submissions have been made. It is important this debate is reflected on in the considerations that will be made. It should be a positive decision to include vehicle mechanics on the critical skills list. This is about providing solutions. I agree entirely with Deputy Kenny. It is one element of a wider conversation that needs to be had regarding staffing our transport system in the first instance. It is important to say it is about maintaining the existing level of service but we are ambitious to expand and put on additional services and we need the staff to deliver those.

I appreciate that work is being done and that the Minister of State is saying the consultation is complete and that progress will be made in due course. We have to recognise that for many people who are waiting to get a bus which does not come because it cannot be serviced, waiting on a report or for something to happen in the future is not any good to them. We need action on this sort of thing immediately. One of the frustrations many experience in both the private and indeed the public sector is that, when they get into this process of seeking employees from outside the European Union and getting work permits for them, it can be a slow and arduous process. They have to advertise in the European Union, prove there is nobody looking for the work and all of this, yet across the European Union and in Ireland, we have many reports from various agencies stating there is a huge shortage of many of these skills and we need to bring them in from outside the jurisdiction. There needs to be haste in providing these permits to get these workers here to make sure we can keep our public services running efficiently.

I appreciate the points being made by the Deputies and those points are well known. I thank them for raising them. As I previously indicated, to add or remove an occupation from the list, evidence is sought demonstrating that recruitment difficulties are solely due to genuine shortages within Ireland and across the EEA and not due to other factors such as salary or employment conditions. It is a shortage of the particular skill that is relevant and not about the pay that is available here or the adequacy or inadequacy of the pay rates. Sectors are also required to engage structurally with the public employment service in the Department of Social Protection. This goes without saying in any event and the Deputies will know that. The interdepartmental group on economic migration policy met in recent days, on 26 October, to oversee the review process and analyse the submissions received and evidence available. A report with recommendations for the consideration of the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, is expected by the end of this month, literally in the coming weeks. The areas we have spoken about relating to bus mechanics are under detailed consideration in view of the number of submissions received on that topic.

The submissions about HGV and bus mechanics are being included in those specific deliberations. I know I do not have an exact time, but I am saying confidently that the recommendations will be with the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, in the coming weeks before the end of this month.