Dáil contributions January to June 2026
- 2 days ago
- 37 min read
Updated: 20 minutes ago
This is the location for all my Dáil contributions for this half-year period, mainly in video with some text. As you can see I am a bit behind in uploading these but will try and catch up and also to have short cut links put in shortly. As of now I do not have a resources to put up contributions in my two Committees, EU Affairs and Enterprise, Tourism and Economic Development; these are searchable on the Oireachtas website.
----
Schools Building Projects - 22 Apr 2026
----
Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions - Thursday, 16th April 2026
----
Air Pollution (Amendment) Bill 2025 [Seanad]: Second Stage - Thursday, 16th April 2026
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Air Pollution (Amendment) Bill 2025. This is legislation we have been promised for a fair couple of years and attempts to respond to a very real public health challenge that often does not get as much attention as it should. It also updates a framework that we have not kept pace with in terms of the scale of the problem across the country. The EPA air quality in Ireland 2023 report reminds us that air pollution, according to those figures, causes an estimated 1,700 premature deaths every year, needless and preventable deaths as others in the Chamber have outlined.
Our legislation is a little bit archaic at this stage. The Bill strengthens the Air Pollution Act 1987 and modernises, on paper, enforcement in line with the commitments set out in the 2023 national clean air strategy. It gives local authorities new powers for fixed payment and compliance notices, enhanced authority to regulate the sale and distribution of solid fuels and the ability to seize non-compliant products. All of that is positive on paper. As an Opposition TD who wants to be constructive rather than overtly critical, though, I also want to point out that the road to hell is paved with good intentions in so many pieces of legislation. We can have all of the strong wording we like, but if we want the Bill to deliver cleaner air and healthier communities and society, we must ensure the enforcement system is fit for purpose.
The evidence shows that, right now, the capacity is uneven, in some cases less than optimal, and under real strain. The best example is in my constituency, where the EPA's 2022 local authority environmental enforcement performance report, published in 2023, reported on various local authorities. Regarding my home area of South Dublin County Council, the EPA found that while the council ticked a lot of the boxes and met the required standards in many areas, it also identified specific weaknesses that were directly related to the Bill, including a reliance on an archaic and ageing compliant management system, backlogs of open environmental cases and the need for improvements in the enforcement of solid fuel regulations.
The regulations bit I get. The staffing and training levels are different issues. They will show whether the Bill will work in practice. I understand there are five litter wardens in south Dublin trying to police the area. Such work is pointless without staff. The Bill is not related to litter wardens, but it is related to enforcement. South Dublin is not alone, in fairness. The EPA has showed a pattern of staffing capacity constraints across multiple local authorities. That is why the Bill needs to be strengthened. I mentioned staffing and training. IT systems and inspection capacity are also necessary.
Without all of these things, the Bill will be a paper tiger. In that context, I want to emphasise the need to revisit the level of fines and what constitutes an effective deterrent. The Bill is good on emphasising proportionate penalties and one can understand that at one level. However, our State has a history of non-compliance on a range of issues. We have to ensure that the fines are meaningful enough to deter illegal fuel sales. If penalties are lower than the profit margins associated with selling non-compliant fuels, it is pointless legislation. Enforcement data from the EPA shows that repeat non-compliance is an ongoing challenge, so agencies have to get real teeth.
Enforcement is only one side of the equation. As my colleagues referenced, the other angle is affordability and practical support for our hard-pressed systems. The SEAI national heat study in 2022 pointed out that many households, in particular lower income households, relied on solid fuels because they had a lack of affordable alternatives. This is why retrofitting for public housing is so important. If we strengthen enforcement without strengthening the supports, all we are doing is placing a further burden on those least able to absorb it.
The Bill should be accompanied by a comprehensive package of measures that, in fairness, are already directly relevant to the latest fuel crisis. We are dealing with an emergency situation right now. We had a debate on the motion of confidence where the Government was, rightly, accused of not responding quickly enough and not doing enough. In the medium term, we need proper strategies in place to help people reduce their fuel bills and move on to alternatives. We need expanded retrofitting and heating system supports, targeted in particular at those at risk of fuel poverty. The warmer homes scheme national retrofit programme is important. The SEAI progress report shows, unfortunately, that demand exceeds capacity and waiting times are way too long. If we want households to move away from smokey fuels, we must make cleaner alternatives accessible.
We also need supports for businesses impacted by the Bill. We need public information campaigns that talk about the damage caused by air pollution. On weather apps, I have often seen that the air quality in some rural areas is worse than in Dublin because of the burning of certain types of smokey fuel. We need to show how that has a direct impact on people's health. The EPA's annual air quality reports highlight the need for greater public awareness, especially in areas where pollution spikes in the winter.
We should also consider establishing an enforcement support unit. Other countries have a hybrid model whereby local authorities carry out the day-to-day enforcement and a national inspectorate supports investigations and ensures consistency in enforcement and compliance. This might be valuable for councils like south Dublin where the EPA audits have identified the capacity challenges I mentioned. We should have better annual public reporting by local authorities of inspection fines, compliance rates and enforcement outcomes to compare by local authority on an annualised basis.
While the Bill is a welcome and necessary step in tackling pollution from mainly solid fuels, we cannot ignore the fact that air quality in Ireland is not just damaged by home heating alone. The air quality in Ireland 2023 report points out that alongside solid fuel burning, transport emissions and industrial activity are major contributors of harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates. Vehicle emissions, in particular from diesel cars, vans and heavy duty vehicles, are well known as a source of urban air pollution.
Localised hotspots in urban areas need to be diminished near busy roads. I am thinking of the M50, N4, and N7, which fall outside the scope of the Bill. If we are serious about clean air, we need complementary legislation that addresses the issues. Low-emission zones, stronger standards overall and better investment in electric vehicles and public transport alternatives are broad issues. While not related to the Bill, smaller industrial and commercial sites are another area. The big-ticket companies are addressed, but some smaller sites fall through the cracks. We need to strengthen oversight and improve monitoring technology.
While the Bill strengthens enforcement on solid fuels, we have to have parallel action on transport and industry. I do not have time to go into the massive investment required in electric vehicles and giving people the ability to charge electric vehicles outside of their homes or adjacent to them using a domestic tariff. The more electric vehicles are on the road, the less pollution we would have. It is an absolute no-brainer. It is also a no-brainer in terms of rising fuel costs if we can get homegrown renewable energy stored properly and converted to green hydrogen in some cases.
I welcome the Bill. It is just one Bill but important legislation. Complementary legislation is essential to protect public health and meet our obligations. In summary, if we want to succeed, we have to match enforcement powers with enforcement capacity. We have to match the regulations with support for households and businesses. The legislation has to be strong enough to do that. We need complementary supports. In general terms, I welcome the Bill.
----
Football: Statements - Wednesday, 15th April
----
Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages - Wednesday, 15th April 2026 (text below)
With the malevolent Trump Administration, we need to closer links with Canada through the EU and this legislation is clearly facilitating what is essentially a trade-off with pluses and minuses. The question is not about whether we are losing sovereignty but whether sovereignty is worth giving up in certain situations, and I believe it is. We have agreed to pool sovereignty at EU level in multiple areas. The Supreme Court decision stated CETA created a parallel system of justice but it did not say the ICS was unconstitutional and required a referendum. Instead it suggested amending legislation would be needed to meet the threshold and that is the Bill before us. I said on Second Stage it struck a reasonable balance to meet the threshold so I do not have a problem with it. The old-style ISDS system has been improved in the ICS. The ICS will have open hearings, independent decision-making processes, judges appointed who cannot engage in outside activities and some, admittedly limited, facility for NGOs, civil society, trade unions, etc. It is a trade-off some will hate and others will reluctantly see as necessary. EU companies, as has been mentioned, can sue Canadian companies and Canadian companies can sue EU companies so while Ireland can be sued without recourse to Irish courts, the action cannot be spurious and must show a company has been affected detrimentally in some way because of a breach of the agreement. We might not like it but companies have a right to be compensated for loss of expected earnings and the threat is overemphasised because making such amendments would not in itself be in breach of the agreement. States still have the right to amend policy on environmental matters, consumer protection, public health and labour laws. Threats will happen and there is always the risk of a chilling effect but the EU is starting to take on the IT companies and it is through the EU we shout down these threats.
However, I am concerned about the lack of proper Oireachtas scrutiny on Committee and Report Stages. We had the confidence motion on Tuesday where the anger of ordinary people was expressed in a robust way by Deputies on this side of the House. The Government was accused of being out of touch and not listening to the people. A day later, after having a good Second Stage debate on CETA, we scheduled statements on football. I am a football fan and it was a great debate, which I welcomed, but it could have been deferred for another week. We could have had several more hours of discussion and proper amendments debated. The Government has the numbers anyway and, like I said, there is a trade-off here, but I will not be voting for this as is because it has not been given the proper scrutiny it deserves by this House.
----
Tackling Soaring Energy Costs: Motion - Wednesday, 15th April 2026
----
Financial Resolution No. 1: Mineral Oil Tax - Tuesday, 14th April 2026
----
Fuel Prices: Motion - Tuesday, 14th April 2026 (text below)
----
Confidence in Government: Motion - Tuesday, 14th April 2026
----
APRIL 2026 ABOVE
MARCH 2026 BELOW
----
An Garda Síochána: Motion - Wednesday, 25th March 2026
----
Ceisteanna ar Pholasaí nó ar Reachtaíocht – Questions on Policy or Legislation - Wednesday, 25th March 2026
----
National Oil Reserves Agency (Amendment) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Wednesday, 25th March 2026
----
Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 (Section 4(2)) (Scheme Termination Date) Order 2026: Motion - Wednesday, 25th March 2026
----
Financial Resolution No.1: Mineral Oil Tax - Tuesday, 24th March 2026
----
An tOrd Gnó - Order of Business - Tuesday, 24th March 2026 (text below)
The Taoiseach may have seen the latest figures from the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, which are a cause for concern. Last year, for example, more than 750,000 units of illegal or fake medicines were seized and the number of individual packages separately purchased by members of the public rose by a whopping 180%. There was a 30-fold surge in fake glucagon-like peptide-1, GLP-1, weight loss products, for example, and also a sharp rise in seizures of pregabalin, which is a drug with legitimate applications, such as for epilepsy, but which can kill when misused. The HPRA, to its credit, has shut down thousands of online listings but the problem is still escalating. With this serious and growing public health threat, what additional measures and resourcing will the Government provide to curb the online sale of dangerous medicines, protect vulnerable people and ensure safe and affordable access to legitimate treatments?
----
Media Regulation Bill 2026: Second Stage - Thursday, 19th March 2026 - (text below)
I want to begin by broadly welcoming the Bill and acknowledging the important work it seeks to do in bringing us into line with the European Media Freedom Act.
It is true and has been said before that Ireland is still considered to have one of the freest, and arguably the finest, presses in the world. We are consistently ranking within the top ten nations, according to the annual world press freedom index published by Reporters Without Borders. That said, the ranking has on occasion, experienced a few fluctuations due to concerns regarding, for example, legal threats to journalists, especially in the context of so-called SLAPPS that are often cited in connection with defamation lawsuits filed by politicians, political parties and certain business tycoons.
There is a general need for regulation, especially with the very small size of our market and the resulting tendency towards the overconcentration of ownership. It is true to say that for years, Ireland has needed a clearer and more independent system for assessing the media mergers that take place in order to protect editorial independence and ensure transparency in terms of how the State allocates advertising money.
This Bill moves key decisions away from the Minister and into the hands of Coimisiún na Meán. I want to reference the comments made by other Deputies in the House with regard to moving decisions from the Minister. I am a great critic of parking health issues with the HSE, parking transport issues with the NTA or saying, "This is a matter for the Garda Commissioner." It is very hard to get direct answers to parliamentary questions or hold agencies to account in the same way. Having a Minister directly involved in the media just provides ammunition to the conspiracy theorists, who call RTÉ and its ilk the "lamestream media", and basically perpetuate the increasing distrust in the media. In my view, it is good for the monitoring and regulation of the media to be one step removed from a Minister.
When it goes to Coimisiún na Meán and if it works and does what the EU framework legislation intends, it may create a more transparent and pluralistic media, freer of political interference. I do not think there is too much of that in this country, in any event, so I would say that it will be freer of allegations of political interference. Down the line, there may be parties in government that are more inclined to seek to interfere in the political process, and we have seen that with the rise of populist parties across Europe. It is a good thing to have this set aside now in case, in the future, we have different configurations that might be less democratically inclined. We live in an age of misinformation and disinformation. Troll factories located in eastern Europe, Russia, Asia and all around the world are deliberately setting out to misinform, disinform, tell outright lies and increase the levels of distrust in our media. If it helps to safeguard the independence of journalism, it is hugely important and essential to any healthy democracy, in particular our small but healthy democracy.
As I said, part of the reason trust in the free press is declining is that we have one of the most concentrated media markets in Europe. That means that every merger or acquisition has a disproportionate impact on the diversity of voices available to the public. Annual reports published by bodies like the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom consistently rank Ireland, a country with very high press freedom, as very "high risk" for market plurality. The 2024 data, which is the latest available, showed a 71% risk score for market plurality, primarily due to what is called the lack of quantitative limits on media concentration in Irish law. This law is trying to remedy that, pushed on, as it is, by the EU framework law. That is why the pluralism-focused merger review required under Article 22 of the European Media Freedom Act is so important. It is not just about competition and market share but about bread-and-butter transparency. It asks the question and tries to seek out whether a merger reduces the range of viewpoints expressed, whether it over-focuses on sensationalism rather than facts, whether it gives one owner too much influence over public debate and whether editorial independence could be compromised, although not necessarily directly. We have heard this about other types of legislation but also in the context of the McCarthyite phrase that is coming into vogue again, that is, the chilling effect on reporting, or possibly in relation to social media, the chilling effect on fact-checking.
We already see this on social media, where just two entities, Meta and Alphabet, are estimated to control over 80% of Irish digital advertising revenues as of 2024. We have seen how hard it is to get these and other social media companies to monitor and regulate their content. It has been hugely challenging, even at a European level. Sin sceál eile. It applies to traditional print and broadcast media as well but at least the level of regulation and penalties available there has been better applied to date, so we have not had the same types of issues.
To go back to the Bill, it is great that the EU principles of press freedom are finally going into Irish legislation. However, as was mentioned in relation to tackling the IT companies and social media, if we want to keep a transparent and pluralistic media, we also have to be serious about resourcing the body that will enforce it. I agree with colleagues who are worried about the Minister passing it on to Coimisiún na Meán. Coimisiún na Meán has already been given major responsibilities for online safety, broadcasting standards and other types of media regulation. We are now adding complex merger assessments, new notification powers and the oversight of state advertising into the mix. We have to ensure that these new roles have adequate staff and expertise. It is not just about passing legislation but it is about making sure that when this is enacted, Coimisiún na Meán is fully resourced.
Regarding the area of state advertising, there are a few welcome things. Article 25 of the European Media Freedom Act, which this Bill facilitates, requires that public funds for state advertising and service contracts are awarded based on transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria. This puts pressure on public and local authorities to consider certain factors when choosing where to place state advertising. Decisions must be based on the media outlet's ability to reach a specific target audience and also the cost effectiveness of advertising spend, as well as its geographical spread, so it is done across different regions, with local versus national. There are also statutory requirements to adhere to legal obligations, such as requirements for public notices or advertising as Gaeilge freisin.
To ensure non-discrimination, certain procedures are required. This has to be publicly available in advance. The criteria and procedures for awarding funds have to be published electronically before the award process begins. It requires the use of open and proportionate procedures for awarding contracts. All advertising campaigns must be based on a strategic brief that identifies clear communication goals and the target audience. Key performance indicators must be set for each campaign.
It is all bells and whistles, or motherhood and apple pie, as long as we have an agency that is resourced to monitor that all of this is happening, and that the annual reports detail the legal names of providers and business groups, as well as the total amounts spent in each section. That is good stuff. However, while praising the Bill and what it is trying to do, we need to find a balance between regulation and putting costs on certain businesses - by that, I mean the smaller ones. We need a system that allows the public, the Oireachtas and the media to see exactly how decisions are made but at the same time, we need to ensure that the smaller local outlets are not unintentionally disadvantaged because of regulation. A pluralist media is not just about preventing dominance at the top; it is also about ensuring that community voices, regional newspapers and independent digital outlets can survive and thrive. These have been challenged over the years. Many of the local newspapers, for example, are now in the hands of larger companies.
I want to make a point from that angle. I know there is a European fund for reporting. We have seen in many local newspapers that content behind a paywall is made freely available by dint of this funding. This allows journalists to report on a wider range of relevant stories.
I want to put on record that my background is in journalism. I went to what used to be called the College of Commerce in Rathmines, which is now TU Dublin. I learned shorthand, which I have forgotten, learned how to type on a clunky typewriter, and learned all about defamation law, the principles of good journalism and how there are different types of journalism. For example, there are colour writers like the inimitable Miriam Lord, who was there when I was training, and there is news reporting and opinion pieces, and we learned the difference between the types. These days, it has become more blurred. One thing I have noticed is the lack of ability of media outlets to raise money. I am talking about the over-reliance on advertising and the lack of purchasing of the old-style newspapers, which are in decline.
It is difficult to try to fund proper journalism and to make it a career, particularly as journalists' pay is massively under threat and has been declining over the years. It is no longer a career that I would encourage someone to go into unless they feel it is a vocation and they are at the top of their game. What I, as a politician as opposed to a journalist, have noticed is that in the old days, journalists would go to council meetings and would report on what happened. They would talk to people at the meetings and ask them questions. What I have noticed more and more is that stories tend to be printed by those who can send in ready-made press statements as opposed to by the journalists who have the tools to go out and find the stories and get behind them. That is something we have to watch out for as we go because journalism is under threat in light of the nature of the modern media age whereby we have social media influencers who display a lot less responsibility. I saw this recently in relation to my constituency where someone published misinformation online that was shared across Facebook and Instagram. That is the sort of stuff that spreads long before you are able to get the real story, and that can sometimes cause a lot of anguish. I know there is regulation of social media influencers by other means, but we need to get a little tougher in terms of the powers relating to that side of things.
While it does not relate to this Bill, I want to refer to the social media companies in terms of what they allow to be published and how they regulate it. These companies have disinvested in proper moderation and fact-checking. They should not be allowed to get away with that. We need to go beyond what is in this Bill, because a vibrant diverse media is not a one-off. It is not just about this Bill; it is an ongoing responsibility for any democracy, especially when democracies are under threat across the world. We will need regular reviews and proper reporting systems and obviously the funding.
I welcome this Bill's alignment with European standards and its commitment to independent oversight, but I hope Coimisiún na Meán will have the resources it needs in order that we can facilitate a diverse, pluralistic and fair-minded media going forward. I say that because we are massively under threat. We need a media we can trust. We need to be able to say that RTÉ has a particular neutral opinion and will not publish anything until it has checked all the facts because it is afraid of being sued. Gript media might be seen as being a little to the right, but it has a valid voice. We then have other media that are perceived to be on the social side. That is all very welcome. We need to make sure that it is maintained.
----
Energy and Fuel Costs: Motion - Wednesday, 18th March 2026 (text below)
I take on board what the Government said about not having a knee-jerk reaction to fuel prices. We are in a very volatile situation and who knows which way it is going to go over the coming months? At the same time, there is some space for some sort of interim coverage. I would say it is going to be coming, to be quite honest. I would like more proactivity in terms of the timescale of what the Government is doing.
Ultimately, as others have referred to, the companies have pushed the prices of petrol, diesel and kerosene up at a rate never seen before. I can only see it as price gouging. The companies will argue differently. We have to look at ways of clawing that back over a period of time. There is an argument in the medium term for the excise duties but I am initially thinking of electricity bills especially as well as home fuel costs.
I reiterate once again that we have to be more proactive in terms of our energy self-sufficiency. This current shock may or may not have been predicted. We had a discussion during Leader’s Questions a month ago on what Ireland was doing in terms of the despotic Iranian regime/ There is no love lost in terms of wanting to see it gone. Equally, however, what the Trump Administration and Netanyahu have done is counterproductive, and it is impacting on all of us.
This reinforces the argument that we have to double, treble or even quadruple our efforts on energy self-sufficiency and ramping up renewables, not only wind, but also wave, tidal, solar and producing green hydrogen. We have to treat it like a war-time situation. If this eases off, something else will come down the road.
----
Online Safety (Recommender Algorithms) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Wednesday, 4th March 2026
----
Post Office Closures: Statements (Resumed) - Wednesday, 4th March 2026
----
Scoliosis and Inquiries: Statements - Wednesday, 4th March 2026
----
Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill 2026: Second Stage (Resumed) - Wednesday, 4th March 2026 (text below)
I will follow up on what Deputy Lawless said about people coming into assets after a period of time. I do not think it is going to be overnight, as such. There have been studies, some of which are actually quite offensive, in which homeless people have been given money. I have seen this in the United States. One guy got in the region of $500,000 and it was gone within six months. There are, therefore, issues. If people are not used to handling money or other assets, there has to be some sort of process tied into that. I do not think it will happen overnight, but it is something of which to be cognisant.
I listened to the Minister of State's contribution last night; I was in the Chamber for most of it anyway. I support most of the elements within the Bill and the whole intention behind it because it deals with a real and immediate risk that people who are wards of court could be left in a legal vacuum because the system has not been able to complete all the capacity reviews in time. Of course, no one wants that to happen, and the legislation will hopefully give the courts the flexibility they need to prevent it. When we are in opposition, as others will say as well, we have to ask why we are here. The deadline in the 2015 Act did not just suddenly appear. As a State, successive Governments have had years to prepare for the transition away from wardship. The Decision Support Service was trying to do its best in these circumstances but, in my view, was not given the levels of staffing or funding required to meet the challenges. The courts could have been asked to absorb this kind of surge of complex reviews in many cases without getting the additional resources they needed. I do not know that for a fact. I am not totally familiar, but it has been suggested that the courts were not getting the resources to deal with it over a period of time.
Maybe the Minister of State would come back on that.
The main criticisms have been that the system was under-resourced from the word go, so if we are moving forward with a new model, there is a question of whether it will get that resourcing. If the legislation is to work as intended, the extension mechanism will need to be managed, for example. It cannot be a rolling deferral. People have been waiting for a long time to exit the system, which we have all acknowledged is outdated. If extensions are granted, there should be very strict time limits. I do not know if anyone here in the Chamber has spoken about an ongoing consistent review but the committee has discussed the question of set periods of time.
Second is a question which relates to training in the past or, more important, going forward. Will professionals in healthcare, social care and in the legal field apply the functional capacity tests in a uniform way? Will the resources be put into training to make sure that, in all sectors, these decisions will be made in a measurable way? Obviously discretion is needed in certain instances but it should not be left to an uneven process, on the basis of either region or sex.
If we do want this very welcome rights-based system, we have to invest in it. I am sure the Minister of State will say the resources will be applied over the coming years, but often those promises have not been followed up sufficiently quickly. It is something to take on board because we do not want to replace one flawed system with another that looks better on paper but leaves vulnerable people without adequate protection.
My key point is resourcing. The Decision Support Service needs sustained investment. The courts need additional capacity. People in the system need accessible information and consistent support to ensure their views, preferences and free will are entirely taken on board so that things are not just put into the legislation but exist in the real practical application of things.
I welcome the Bill. It is better than leaving people in legal uncertainty, but unless it is met with resources, it will be just a stopgap. I wish the Minister of State well in bringing this legislation forward. It is not a field in which I consider myself an expert or in which I am particularly knowledgeable, but others on the committee know more and I hope they will put forward amendments, which the Minister of State will look at in due course. to make the Bill as strong as possible and I hope that she provides the resources.
----
Public Health (Single-Use Vapes) Bill 2025: Committee and Remaining Stages - Wednesday, 4th March 2026
----
Seachtain na Gaeilge: Ráitis - Tuesday, 3rd March 2026
----
Tithíocht Gaeltachta: Tairiscint [Comhaltaí Príóbháideacha] - Tuesday, 3rd March 2026
----
MARCH 2026 ABOVE
FEBRUARY 2026 BELOW
----
Ceisteanna ar Pholasaí nó ar Reachtaíocht - Questions on Policy or Legislation - Thursday, 26th February 2026
----
Ceisteanna ar Pholasaí nó ar Reachtaíocht - Questions on Policy or Legislation - Wed, 25 Feb 2026 (text below)
I had hoped to speak to the Taoiseach but he had to leave. Following up on an issue I raised with the Taoiseach on 27 January last, it appears that a lot of forensic psychiatrists in Ireland do not want to get involved in cases involving the killing of family members by loved ones. It appears to be related to calls for a review of processes and the whole uncertainty around that. This was reflected at a recent Central Criminal Court hearing where Mr. Justice Paul McDermott said there were serious deficiencies in obtaining consultant psychiatric reports, and repeated delays in seeking appropriate forensic experts, leading to situations where families were forced to return to court over a dozen times because the State could not appoint a suitable forensic specialist.
He said this was completely unacceptable and I am sure the Minister would agree. Will he also agree to write or get the Taoiseach to write to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions asking if it has a formal review mechanism for examining the processes by which forensic psychiatric opinions are compiled, whether consideration has been given to establishing clearer standards or oversight structures and to seek clarity as to whether the DPP is satisfied international best practice is being implemented in these situations?
----
Special Needs Assistants: Statements - Wednesday, 25th February 2026
----
Expanding Access to General Practitioner Care: Motion - Wednesday, 25th February 2026 (text below)
I am aware that GP training places have increased over the years but, as my colleagues said in the House, it has not matched the population increase. I come from a constituency that has a huge deficit of GP services, especially in rapidly growing strategic development zones, SDZs, areas like Adamstown and Clonburris, and in rapidly growing areas like Citywest and Saggart. While GPs historically have been self-motivated private operators, they have not got the assistance for the modern age. I am talking about buildings they can actually move into. Historically, the GP was in a house. They lived in the house with their family, and had a separate area where they built up their practice. If they had to move out later on, they were able to do that. There are no supports in SDZs in terms of finding affordable premises. Those sorts of supports need to be provided. Equally, there are GPs who want to work within the health service and have regular hours, even if that is weekend rosters and shifts.
We need to focus on employing more GPs directly. A lot of GPs are emigrating. That is a serious issue in terms of the money spent on them and getting a return. It is also a huge brain drain. We are bringing in well-qualified imports. While we would not have a service without a lot of foreign doctors, it does not make sense to be shipping out Irish people. In that context, we need to look at improving the working conditions, providing incentives in terms of training and trying to address housing. As I have mentioned in regard to gardaí and nurses, there should be some sort of short-term gap where people can live in the area where they are trying to set up a practice as part of a shared scheme with others. Otherwise it is going to be financially unsustainable. We also need proper career pathways which they have in places like Australia and New Zealand. We do not seem to have that in Ireland. We need to look at an awful lot of the administrative paperwork as well.
----
Work Life Balance (Right to Remote Work) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Wednesday, 18 February 2026
----
School Accommodation - Tuesday, 17th February 2026
----
Ceisteanna ar Pholasaí nó ar Reachtaíocht - Questions on Policy or Legislation - Wed, 11 Feb 2026
----
Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages - Wednesday, 11th February (text below)
I wanted to get onto the housing committee. I am not a member of the committee but I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill again and support the amendments that were tabled, which relate to reviews, reports and caps. I have already said that I support the Bill in principle and the concept behind it but what is being proposed raises so many questions and concerns that, as others have mentioned, it is hugely unlikely to do what it is intended to, unless the intention is purely to increase supply and increase the profits of large developers and real estate investment trusts that are largely from outside the country.
To give an example, I see the logic of providing exemptions for new builds linked solely to the consumer price index to try to get more construction going. I get the concept that the State needs to get other people building and more supply into the market. Eventually, that supply will, hopefully, stabilise prices or bring them down but there is a huge question over the market reset, as proposed here. There could have been a happy medium in which some form of an increase was provided but it was capped, rather than being entirely a so-called market increase, because, as others have said, housing should never be just left to the markets. It is about people's daily lives.
I have a constituent who has fallen into arrears because it took them a long time to get a housing assistance payment. They are now asking if the local authority can give them homeless HAP because the landlord has indicated that they will take the homeless HAP if the council pays and the tenant they cannot pay the rent. The council is saying, however, that it is an existing tenancy, so the person, once they are evicted, will get the homeless HAP but they are now going to have to pay a much higher rent and the State is going to have to pay a much higher rent. The cost of HAP this year will be, I think, over €570 million. If that €570 million was used to build houses, we would get between 4,000 and 6,000 houses, which is not the number of houses needed. If you were trying to develop a system, you would not have brought in HAP in the first place, but we are kind of stuck with it now. That is the problem.
As rents rise and people cannot afford to pay them, the taxpayer will essentially foot the bill. We have had various suggestions about housing, including that the State should become the single biggest developer. Successive governments have argued against that idea, saying it is not feasible, might breach the Stability and Growth Pact, etc. However, we need to look at the actual cost of housing delivery. We have not had a serious discussion about having a State real estate investment trust whereby people, through the credit union or some other means, would contribute towards the purchase or construction of housing. They would be stakeholders but it would be a social enterprise. There may be a return on the investment but it would be a lot less than the super-profits these companies are going to make. This approach would lead to affordable rents going forward because if it is left to the private market, the market will take its toll.
I will digress slightly but the same principle applies. In Lucan, South Dublin County Council, in its wisdom, did not have its social enterprise company tender for the operation of the swimming pool. Instead, it was let out to a company called Aura Leisure, which is very successful and competent in its own field. However, there was no underlying subsidy. Now we have a public pool where people are paying commercial prices because it was left up to a commercial operator to manage it. In every situation where you bring in a cut, the developer or investor will take a much bigger cut than the Government or local authority would take in terms of the common good.
I also refer to what others have said about the incentive to end tenancies sooner than would otherwise be the case. I think Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about the situation in relation to an extra family member.
----
Flood Prevention: Motion [Private Members] - Wednesday, 11th February
----
Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions - Wednesday, 11th February
----
Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences (Amendment) Bill 2026: Second Stage [Private Members] - Tuesday, 10th February
----
Seanad Reform - 5th February 2026 (thanks to 5th Year Politics and Society students of St Joseph's College)
----
Road Safety: Statement - Thursday, 5th February
----
Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Wednesday, 4th February
----
Bord Bia - Wednesday, 4th February (text below)
In principle, I support the motion because if you have lost the confidence of the farmers whose produce you are trying to promote, then the writing is on the wall. Mr. Murrin will, I understand, be making a presentation to a committee tomorrow. We have to listen to what he has to say. I am conscious that the vote on the motion will not be taken tonight in any event.
I am reserving judgment on this matter, particularly as we are not talking about Peter Mandelson giving away state secrets or a child molester like Jeffrey Epstein. We are talking about someone whose company is importing Brazilian beef. Obviously, there are questions, as others have said, about Brazilian beef, including in the context of banned hormones, traceability and the environmental impact, which is why, on balance, I support the calls, on the basis of environmental grounds in particular, not to implement the Mercosur deal. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy and grandstanding involved here.
Let the man speak tomorrow and see what he has to say. The pressure might take a toll, but we have to put it into context. Ultimately, if you do not have people's confidence, then the writing is on the wall. He may have to make the decision in that regard himself. Let us give him a week or so and see what happens.
----
FEBRUARY 2026 ABOVE
JANUARY 2026 BELOW
----
Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2025 - 29th January
----
International Protection Bill - 28th January
----
Statements on Infrastructure Plan - 28th January (text below)
As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows, I have some experience of being angry and losing my rag but it has to be used sparingly. In this context, I would use words like "exasperation", "frustration", "cynicism" and "being jaded overall" in terms of Government promises that have never been brought forward. I am, therefore, trying to put on my positive hat for a second.
Obviously, this plan is trying to employ 62 people in an infrastructure division in the Department of public expenditure and reform with a whole lot of technical experts trying to bring all the agencies together. On paper, that is a good thing because they have not been working together in a holistic way but, unfortunately, the actual amount of investment that is required for our energy grid and water infrastructure is a paltry amount. We should be borrowing and even breaching the EU growth and stability pact to invest in the infrastructure that will actually gain us revenue down the line. We are doing it too slowly.
I take on board that we do have, let us say, people who take judicial reviews who do not always have the common good at heart. I do take a board on board that we have to restrict that but, equally, there are communities in my constituency and all around the country who put in submissions and object to proposals because they want infrastructure and facilities tied in alongside housing. In areas like the Clonburris strategic development zone, it is a very poor SDZ. Adamstown is a little bit better. There are a lot of areas around my constituency where the Government is putting in lots of houses but no infrastructure. It has to make sure that it follows up like with Dart+ South West, for example, or the Luas to Lucan and increased capacity for the Luas to Saggart. All these things go together. I am quite jaded but prove me wrong.
----
Emergency Winter Payment for Disabled People - 28th January 2026
----
Emergency Mental Health Services - 27th January
----
Article 20 of Treaty on European Union Regarding Enhanced Co-operation: Motion - Tuesday, 27th January 2026
----
Leader's Questions 27th January 2026 - Need for investigation into McGinley Children Inquest input from HSE so as to learn lessons and help prevent further deaths in the future
----
Questions on Policy or Legislation - EV car rentals at airports and expanding use of Ireland West Airport to minimise congestion heading west on M50 and N4 - 22nd January 2026
----
Leader's Questions - Iranian executions - 22nd January 2026
----
Statements on Water - 21st January
----
Statements on International Developments - 21st January (text below)
I welcome the opportunity to speak on international events, however brief my time. The Government has quite a bit of input from the European Union perspective. We have President Donald Trump addressing the World Economic Forum. He said he is not going to use military force today, but he is putting pressure. As the Tánaiste said, we have some aces up our sleeves as well. The Government are dealing with a narcissist and a big baby supported by a vice president who is worthy of less admiration because he lambasted the current US President and then when he got into office, he acted like a coward. The current administration will hopefully be out of office in a while, but we have to keep our links with our friends in the US because there is sanity in that country among the vast majority of the population but we have to get through these troubled times in the meantime. All we can do is speak softly and act with one united European Union voice. Unfortunately, many times we do not have that united voice, but I urge the Minister of State, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to use whatever influence they have, not just in relation to the Greenland issue but the ongoing issues in Israel and Gaza, as well as Iran, something I will return to during Leaders' Questions tomorrow.
----
Commuter Delays (in Flexible Work debate) - 21st January 2026 (text below)
I live in the wonderful constituency of Dublin Mid-West, which has some fantastic people, but it is also the congestion capital of Ireland. That goes back to when Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, sometimes with dodgy backhanders, were rezoning land on greenfield sites left, right and centre. They built houses everywhere with no facilities and infrastructure. Then, when we had a chance with strategic development zones like Clonburris, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit, the Labour Party and the Social Democrats accused me and others in Lucan, where we were trying to put in playing pitches, of being snobs and trying to move houses to Clondalkin instead when we were trying to move houses to Kishoge train station so people could walk down and get a train. We tried to put in measures that would open the train station before any houses were built. That was not passed, and the board did not uphold our appeal. As a result, the train station in Kishoge had to be totally revamped at a cost of €4 million. The car park that was at Kishoge train station is now gone for housing development, so they had to narrow a lane and put the car parking spaces alongside for the National Transport Authority, NTA, to permit it, and that has led to additional congestion.
As someone with a green background, I know that the more roads we build, the more that cars are going to fill them. We are always going to have a congestion equilibrium but if we put the investment into public transport, we are going to have a lower equilibrium. We are still going to have people driving. If the buses are flowing freely and the traffic gets easier, people are going to start driving again - that is human nature. Now, we have the Government asking South Dublin County Council to rezone more and more land all around the county yet Dart+ South West has been put on the long finger. Bus Connects is a shambles. I have said before that the NTA is not accountable to anybody. The train service in terms of extra carriages is not being provided, but the Government is asking people to move into places where it cannot guarantee they can get to work. That is why we need flexibility in terms of working hours. It is so people can bring their kids to school or try to find a crèche, if they are lucky enough to bring their kids to a crèche as well. We need more investment, and we need more flexibility.
We also need a change in industrial policy. I mentioned before that in one estate in my constituency, 90% of the people who are paying top dollar for those houses are not from Ireland. They are from abroad. They are working and paying taxes and contributing here. The issue is, though, that they have not grown up in the area. People who have grandparents who could help mind their kids are being priced out of the market. Meanwhile, software companies are saying they want to go to Dublin. There are rural areas that could do with kids in schools and with the added investment and the industrial policy has not been firm enough to say that if people want to set up their software company, they can set it up with the broadband hubs in rural areas. Keep the population and keep the post offices and banks open.
The entire spatial strategy in this country is for the birds. We need a new town in the midlands that is designed properly. We need to redesign city living and build right up in Dublin city centre in order that people can walk around and go to the shops. We need to bring in all the public sector workers, including gardaí, by giving them incentives to live and work in the city centre. We must stop building out in the suburbs unless we can guarantee the infrastructure is there. In fact, the infrastructure situation is getting worse. In Adamstown, Clonburris and other areas like them, residents are now being given restricted parking spaces. They are told there are 0.75 spaces per unit because this is an area with active travel initiatives, a public transport hub, etc., except it is not. The 15-minute cities will be 50-minute ghettos in 20 years' time because people will not be able to get out of the place if they have a car and they might not be able to have a car because there is nowhere to park it. Three lads renting a house, say, and trying to get from A to B across the city cannot get on a train in the first place and have nowhere to park a vehicle. We need to rethink the whole thing and think a little more cleverly.
----
Sale of Nitrous Oxide and Related Products Bill - Tuesday 20th January (text below)
I support fully this Bill by my Sinn Féin constituency colleague, Deputy Mark Ward. In terms of its efforts to restrict the sale, possession and supply of nitrous oxide products, it has added to the whole debate. It should absolutely be lauded. In that context, while I take on board what the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, said about EU legislation and having to give notice and having to look at the legislation because it was seen only in the past while, we know that Second Stage Bills coming from Opposition parties cannot proceed to Committee and Report Stages unless the Government facilitates that in any event. There is a lot of time, even up to nine months, that could have been used to prepare the Bill for the next Stage and have that proper debate, so I do not see the excuse as being particularly valid. I do take on board what the Minister said about the existing legislation that makes it an offence to sell nitrous oxide if it is for unpermitted use as a drug product. The question I ask there is that if that is the case, how come that legislation has not been enforced to the extent we would like it to be enforced over the past ten years? That is a question that has not been answered. If this legislation, as proposed, makes it a little heavier and puts greater onus on the supply chain, it can only be a good thing.
There is the question, as others have mentioned, if this were to go through tomorrow, no matter what way it were to be amended, as to whether the Garda has the resources to follow up. Will the inspection authority have the resources to follow it up and prosecute where required? These are questions that have not been answered.
There is a wider issue as well, as Deputy Gannon and others have referred to. I go back to one of the comments made by one of the Sinn Féin contributors, who quoted Ciara Murphy, project leader at the Finglas youth service, who highlighted on "Prime Time" how the price of alcohol is actually driving the use of nitrous oxide. If anything, that should be seen as a slight positive in the sense that alcohol still causes a significantly higher number of deaths among young people than nitrous oxide. Alcohol is one of the biggest risk factors for death and disability in 15-to-24-year-olds in Ireland, and one in four deaths of young men aged 15 to 34 is directly related to alcohol. With 50,000 children starting to drink in Ireland every year, anything we can do legislatively through the pricing mechanism - the minimum price, etc. - is a good thing. Almost 50% of young driver fatalities - I am going back now because I do not have the up-to-date legislation - from 2013 to 2017 had toxicology for alcohol. More recently, we have toxicology for drugs as well.
Nitrous oxide usage is a growing public health concern. I and my team, when we go around, are picking canisters up left, right and centre. We have been told by the local authority that you can put them into domestic bins. Where they go after the domestic bins, however, is definitely another question because they can cause safety hazards for workers sifting through that rubbish, so it is better to bring them to recycling centres. I mentioned the other day, in relation to nitrous oxide but during debate on the vaping legislation, that there is a different angle in terms of the storage, supply and monitoring from a safety and environmental perspective in relation to nitrous oxide canisters. Tonight is not the time to digress too much in that regard but we have all seen them all over the place causing a blight on our landscape, so it is not just the numerous health issues, for young people in particular, but also the environmental damage. The environmental aspect needs to be brought back.
I will talk for a second about the issue of the addiction in general. I note that this legislation deliberately, and rightly, seeks not to criminalise young people for possession of nitrous oxide canisters but no more than people caught with bottles of vodka or bottles of gin, there seems to be no mechanism for intervening from a public health perspective. When we had some of the debates at local authority and national levels about decriminalisation of cannabis, for example, the Portuguese model was often cited where it was seen as a health issue. In the context of this, I am not sure about the technical nature of this proposed legislation or if it can be worked in here but if people are caught in possession of nitrous oxide canisters, or indeed bottles of alcohol, it should be recorded, not as a criminal offence but to ensure that there is some form of intervention, whether it is through youth services, an education programme or some sort of mental health service, depending on whether the community gardaí are involved and know the individuals concerned. Too often, addiction spreads out. It covers a multitude. This just happens to be the addiction of choice for a lot of people in the current age. If we clamp down on this, they will find something else. There was an incident recently involving a poor young lad in relation to aerosol usage, for example. No matter what, people will try to find ways to get that buzz. It is the why people want to get that buzz as well as the how people want to get that buzz that needs to be tackled in the wider context. I am not trying to say, "There are other issues we need to look at; therefore, this Bill is not important." This Bill is extremely important. It needs to be brought to Committee Stage as soon as possible so we can have a proper debate on it. I thank my constituency colleague, Deputy Ward, along with other colleagues and the service who worked with him on this, for bringing it forward because it is very useful legislation. That has to be recognised.
----
Health (Amendment) (Home Support Providers) Bill 2025 - Tuesday 20th January
----
Statements on Artificial Intelligence - Thursday 15th January 2026
----
Questions on Policy 15th January - Single Use Cups (text below)
In Ireland, we use over 200 million single-use tea and coffee cups a year. That equates to at least 20,000 cups an hour. That is a staggering figure. Coffee cups are, according to Irish Business Against Litter, among the top five most littered items in the country according to a recent survey. Most of these cups cannot go into recycling bins because of the polyethylene lining used in the paper, making them non-recyclable. The Government had proposed a 20 cent levy as well as other measures. As the Minister knows, the litter issue is one thing, but the long-term environmental damage is another. When is the Government going to use or amend the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 to bring in a refundable deposit? Along with other products that I have referred to before such as the vaping material and nitrous oxide canisters, they are littering our country and we need to have something with a behavioural impact as well as increased fines.
----
Gas Safety (Amendment Bill) 2025 14th January 2026 - Including issues of general gas safety
----
Mercusor Trade Deal 13th January 2026
----
Public Health (Single Use Vapes) Bill 2025 - 13th January 2026
Comments