Dáil Contributions July to December 2026
This is the location for all my Dáil contributions for this half-year period, a mixture of video and text. There may be a time lag getting some things uploaded as other office work takes precedence. January to June 2026 debates are here at this location: https://www.paulgogarty.com/post/d%C3%A1il-jan-june-26 .
All transcripts are searchable on the Oireachtas website. 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 also searchable on the Oireachtas website.
---
Treatment of families with Scoliosis and Spina Bifida - Statements on Children's Health Ireland - Thursday 22nd October, 202
---
Triple Lock - Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Wednesday 21st October, 2026
NB - Precluded from voting as was officially paired - speech below outlines my position
Like others, I value our neutrality, and insofar as it is reflected in our Constitution, we have a number of checks and balances. Article 29 commits Ireland to peace, international justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Following the Lisbon Treaty, it also explicitly provides that Ireland shall not adopt any decision relating to a common defence of the European Union. I am comfortable with these arrangements remaining as they are, although some argue that Ireland should be prepared to demonstrate greater military solidarity with other European states, particularly the smaller Baltic nations and others like Poland if they are faced with real and serious aggression, and that aggression is becoming a higher risk. It is a legitimate debate to have, even within our own European affairs committee.
However, it would represent a profound change in Irish policy, and that sort of thing should only occur after a proper discussion. That type of debate should ultimately go to a vote of the Irish people. At the same time, I acknowledge that there is a practical issue with the current triple lock mechanism, as I said in previous contributions, because the UN Security Council can and has been paralysed by the veto of permanent members, and that is likely to go on for quite a while. Any General Assembly recommendations are not legally binding, so if we want to have peacekeeping missions which might otherwise command broad international support, we have to find other ways around it. We have earned enormous respect for our participation in operations over the years. We have served with distinction in Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and Chad. We sacrificed our lives in these and other places like Congo, and we should ensure that genuine peacekeeping operations can continue into the future.
I am going to put out something I have raised before, which is that while I am not wedded to any single mechanism, one option to keep a triple lock, if we get rid of that of the UN, is to require a supermajority in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I mentioned 80% at one stage, and perhaps that is too high. Perhaps it should be two thirds. We need to have a chat about it, but the assent of Dáil and Seanad Éireann before troops are deployed on missions which currently require triple lock assent could be a workable solution. It could not be said that the Government of the day, with a couple of people in the majority, can make such decisions. It needs wider debate, and that is the political consensus as representative democracy. Obviously, we need to discuss other constitutional issues down the line in terms of changing any sort of military alliance within the European context.
We cannot separate this debate from the condition of our Defence Forces, as we have so many long-standing deficiencies in terms of recruitment, retention, abuse of members, gaps in maritime surveillance and air-defence radar coverage. The report on the Commission of the Defence Forces highlighted the need for substantial reform and investment. We also had the issues of pay and conditions. This week, the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers expressed huge frustration over delays in delivering promised improvements and pointed to a ruling upheld by the Council of Europe that Defence Forces personnel are not being adequately compensated through pay or time off for overtime and public holiday works. They are earning as little as €4 per hour for certain duties that, in any other circumstance, would be called overtime. Whatever our views on this triple lock debate, we should have common agreement in this House that the men and women who serve our State deserve fair remuneration and conditions.
I am paired tonight, so I cannot get to vote on Second Stage. As is, I would vote against it, but I look forward, assuming it is passed, to having further discussions on this matter.
---
Wasted renewable energy - Wednesday 21st October, 2026
I have raised this multiple times and am flagging it with the Taoiseach again. New figures from EirGrid show that more than 13% of available wind and solar electricity could not be used in the first nine months of this year. That is enough energy to power almost 500,000 homes. It is concerning that we are losing vast amounts of clean, renewable energy because our grid and storage capabilities are not up to pace. At a time when households face high electricity costs and data centres are increasing our dependence on gas, which sets the price, Ireland is exposed to imported fossil fuels. It is a missed opportunity. We need urgent investment in battery storage and green hydrogen conversion and greater system flexibility and we are doing it too slowly. Can the Taoiseach give a commitment that we are going to increase our efforts to be more self-sufficient?
I can indeed. The day before yesterday, at the Cabinet sub-committee, we met EirGrid. We discussed the €18 billion investment to 2030 to enhance the capacity of the grid, which is important, but also storage. We have had some good developments, particularly in the midlands, on battery storage and so forth, but we have to move at pace. I get frustrated that some of the renewable projects are still with An Coimisiún Pleanála, for example. We have an energy crisis. Our dependency on fossil fuels creates unreliability in energy supply that is really problematic. Anything we can do to make sure that we optimise the energy generated by renewables and do not lose it is something that we are focused on. The discussion at the Cabinet sub-committee was looking beyond 2030 as well, at further investments to expand the grid. I certainly do not disagree with what Deputy Gogarty is saying.
---
Non-Binary and Intersex Recognition Bill 2026: Second Stage - Wednesday 21st October, 2026
NB - Precluded from voting as was officially paired - speech below outlines my position
This is not a debate on the intricacies of what defines trans [referring to previous speaker]. I support the principles of the Bill. I am paired with Deputy James Lawless so I will not be voting today but were I voting on Second Stage, I would vote in favour of the Bill. I want to put this on the record.
It is important that no intersex infant is forced by bureaucracy or parental pressure into rigid binary assignment at birth. Equally, our laws have ignored the lived realities of non-binary people, who deserve full legal recognition. I support both these aims. As my Labour Party colleagues have mentioned, as legislators we have a duty to ensure that our laws are structurally sound, and what they are saying is that we will possibly have to debate this on Committee Stage. The proposal in the Bill to use a single catch-all X marker inadvertently conflates two entirely different things. These are the physical biological sex characteristics identified at birth or puberty and the definition of a legal transition, which includes subjective gender identity.
Medical data shows that fewer than 3% of intersex variations are visible at birth and a lot are discovered much later, during puberty or adulthood. All intersex people have a right to be identified as intersex at any stage. The Bill uses a single marker to address both a birth trait and an adult's self-determined identity, which I also respect. However, a newborn infant cannot possess a non-binary identity and forcing this identity to retroactively replace an objective biological marker at birth would create legal contradictions. The Gender Recognition Act needs to be reformed and updated. A person transitioning is not the same as a person who has a non-binary gender identity.
These issues need to be discussed more and there are various international views on this. I support the Bill passing Second Stage and I urge the Government to support it. We need amendments to be discussed. We should create a specific biological marker at birth, such as an "I" marker for intersex infants and, later, adults, to accurately reflect biological variations and we should also have distinct and separate identification for non-binary adults who wish to legally declare their identity.
---
The need to extend the Special Amenity Area at St Edmundsbury/Woodville - 21st October, 2022
---
Tax measures versus investment in services - Finance (No. 2) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Tuesday 20th October, 2026
NB - Precluded from voting as was officially paired - speech below outlines my position
Looking at the Second Stage of this Finance (No. 2) Bill, anyone with a smidgeon of social conscience and even a basic understanding of fiscal prudence would say that we are going about things the wrong way. We are considered to be in full employment but the core strategy of this Bill, as I said in previous contributions, is to inject lots of euros into stimulating demand, when we have a choice to actually take on board the repeated warnings of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council.
By pushing ahead with what I would call untargeted tax cuts and short-term similarly untargeted cash boosts, this budget is giving with one hand but inflation will take it back with the other. I suggest that even allowing for the absolute need to give a dig-out to those impacted by fuel increases and price hikes, the real fiscal responsibility at a time when we do have some revenues to spare and we have to help people means acknowledging the bottlenecks in the system. The greatest threat to the cost of living for ordinary families is not necessarily tinkering with the tax bands and saying here is a few extra quid for them, but by tackling the structural deficits in our public infrastructure. Otherwise, we are reusing this term "voodoo economics" coined back in the day during Reagan's time because if a marginal increase in workers' take-home pay is given, from a tax perspective, it is wiped out instantly if they have to pay for private childcare, private healthcare, private assessments of need and private grinds, all because our public services are understaffed and, in many cases, overwhelmed. We are talking about childcare.
People have no choice but to drive and pay high fuel prices because they cannot suddenly switch to an EV if they have a petrol or diesel car, and that is if they have a car. Others will have to get a taxi because in many cases no decent public transport is available. Instead of giving general money to spend, our funding should be used to build long-term economic resilience through services.
As I have mentioned before, in the medium term we have to guard against data centre progression using so much of our capacity, which increases our reliance on gas and pushes up the price even as renewables increase. I have mentioned the significant investment needed to upgrade our grid and be energy self-sufficient and a net exporter, something which has huge revenue potential. That is a multi-annual project and we need to get moving on it now, using windfall receipts, borrowing strategically and partnering to increase capacity and cut costs.
We need to focus on the annual budget side. Specifically, we have to invest directly in the permanent recruitment of critical front-line staff, most notably teachers, gardaí, social workers, occupational therapists and bus drivers. When a school has enough teachers to function and a hospital has enough nurses to clear its waiting lists, we lower the structural cost of living in a sustainable manner. Instead, we are adding to costs by failing to keep our homegrown staff. They are going abroad. Nurses, for example, are going abroad because they are not offered permanent posts. We are leveraging expensive agency services. When our best and brightest emigrate, we import staff to do the same work but increase our costs overall due to strains on housing and education through family reunification, etc. It is a regressive strategy. We should instead provide upfront investment in our own people and protect our public servants by index-linking pay rather than relying on cute hoor budgetary adjustments that look good on paper but add to inflation. We have to protect services and our front-line workers and keep our costs down. That is what should be done.
---
Drug Debt Related Intimidation and Community Safety: Motion - Tuesday 20th October 2026
NB - Precluded from voting as was officially paired - speech below outlines my position
Gabhaim buíochas. The Minister will be aware of the drug related intimidation and violence engagement, DRIVE, report that found there were over 1,000 cases of intimidation in every county between 2024 and 2025. Almost two thirds of the victims lived with family members. Drug debt was a factor in over two thirds of cases, with amounts between €100 and €20,000. As Deputy Lawless said before me, a lot of cases are not reported. Recently, I heard through the grapevine of someone over on the northside of the city - not in my constituency - where there were five or six teenagers who rushed into a house past the two grandparents looking for a young lad who owed money for drugs. The grandfather said something and got a whack in the face. He basically got beaten up. They did not report it, to my knowledge, because they were absolutely afraid. That situation is happening across the country.
We know there are no consequences for low level antisocial behaviour to catch the hangers-on but this is a higher level of stuff. There need to be serious consequences for those who are abusing young children in this way. There need to be consequences for the young children who think it is the flash thing to do but we obviously need juvenile resources from that point of view as well. Equally, those who can afford to and the more affluent groups in our society who think it is okay to have a social go of cocaine bear responsibility and the Minister said it on media interviews himself. I would like to see consequences for their responsibility because these people should know better and if they are involved in taking cocaine, they are responsible for families like the English family. My thoughts and prayers go out to the family, friends and relatives. They are equally as responsible and they need consequences as well so they are not actually buying into this market.
---
Public Sector Pay: Motion - Thursday 15th October, 2026
It is unbelievable that the Government allowed the public sector pay deal to lapse in June of this year, leaving more than 400,000 public servants without a collective pay deal for the first time in roughly 15 years. There is a lot of ground to make up, as others have said, because trust has been damaged and previous commitments have not been honoured or, where they were honoured, they were delayed. No wonder people were out striking in their multiples, as I saw yesterday. They are impacted by the clear reduction in the purchasing power of take-home pay, thanks to general inflation allied with the exponential increase in the cost of fuel, the causes of which we know are global.
However, these price increases affect people differently depending on where they live and what options they have. Many people do not have alternatives to fossil fuels, so people are collectively struggling. This is why the Government could have and should have agreed to enter meaningful negotiations without preconditions, to look at correcting the historic imbalances and then to ensure that future pay rises at least match inflation, because we have to protect workers' living standards and avoid industrial unrest, which affects our competitiveness in any event. No one wants to be out on strike. I get that it is hard to do year-on-year pay deals in exceptional global circumstances, where things are literally changing day by day, but we need an agreed process, and people need to have faith in that process.
This affects all workers in the public sector, whom the Government has taken for granted over the years. I reiterate something I said before, that there also needs to be a separate measure for front-line workers, especially those posted in high-cost areas, where the salary might be the same across the country but the costs are not. If we want to retain our best and brightest rather than lose the teachers, gardaí, nurses and so on to the United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand or even across the water to England, we need to make sure people feel valued.
In this context, I refer to an audiovisual presentation this morning by nursing and midwifery graduates who, unfortunately, have been blocked from employment. I was told it is a postcode lottery but, essentially, even though the graduates were promised jobs, restrictions and cutbacks in the HSE have taken the offers away and left them in limbo. Some of them are dependent on social welfare and many are actively looking at travelling abroad. The first action taken by the HSE, at least at local level, appears to have been to reduce or stop offering these permanent contracts to newly qualified nurses and midwives, largely as a fiscal measure to prevent budgets from being exceeded. This is an argument, for example, for why we need multi-annual budgeting in any event.
This is happening despite the health service's continued dependence on agency staff to fill vacancies, and we know that agency workers often cost a lot more than directly employed staff. It is at least 20% more in many cases. Although, and credit to the Government in this regard, the number of nursing and midwifery graduates has increased, permanent employment opportunities have not kept pace. The failure to provide these career pathways and employment opportunities sends a negative message to graduates after years of study, sacrifice and service. We know our Irish-trained nurses and midwives are highly regarded internationally and are highly sought after and actively recruited by health systems around the world. Without secure employment prospects at home, there is a real risk that the newly qualified professionals will be the next generation going abroad, exacerbating existing staffing shortages.
Every single year, the Irish taxpayer heavily subsidises the training of our fantastic nurses, midwives and teachers, yet the moment they graduate, we are forcing them onto planes to Australia, the UK and Dubai. To fill the void, the State spends millions on overseas recruitment packages, relocation allowances and astronomical agency fees. However, it is deeper than that. I asked this week whether a full cost-benefit analysis had been carried out on the overall cost of this, and it has not. The Government is operating in different silos with blindfolds on. We are exporting our own youth to import a workforce, and we do not assess, let alone count, the cost of this, whether that is the cost of funding family reunifications, added infrastructure strains, creating thousands of new school places, and language supports and assistance that are already overstretched. We are paying the upfront accommodation allowance for overseas staff and so are artificially inflating rents when we already have a broken rental market that drove our graduates away in the first place. All these overseas staff do a fantastic job and they are necessary but they should be supplementing our service, not holding it up. We have the highest proportion of foreign-trained nurses in the entire OECD. In 2024, it was 54% of practising nurses. That is an absurd percentage in the context of our commitment to train more home-grown nurses. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish. We should pay all public sector workers a decent wage so it does not fall behind inflation, and cut the unnecessary costs in the system to make up for it.
---
Gender Pay Gap and identification of bodies of relatives in institutions - Employment Equality and Institutional Burials (Amendment) Bill 2026 - Tuesday 13th October, 2026
I have got longer than I thought, which is good.
I welcome the opportunity to speak a little longer on the Employment Equality and Institutional Burials (Amendment) Bill, which is a constructive piece of legislation. We need provisions relating to the gender pay gap reporting. It is always important to have transparency for policymakers, employers and workers in improving things but we obviously still have the existing inequalities.
The creation of this central reporting mechanism is going to make information easier to access, analyse and compare notes on, so to speak.
The Government itself stated that the purpose of the portal was to enable clear examination of pay disparities across sectors and to support responses aimed at reducing the gender pay gap, which, unfortunately, is still evident in many areas. With the technology we have had over the past couple of years, you would argue that gathering this data is not rocket science. I want to put a related point out there or ask a rhetorical question as to why it has taken so long to roll out. There have been comparable systems in the UK for quite a number of years, whereby the gender pay gap data are reported to the central government service that allows users to search and compare different organisations and sectors. It is a much bigger jurisdiction with bigger resources to match, but it should not have taken us so long. Internationally, this has been seen as best practice in many countries for a long time.
In 2025, the Department stated that a centralised portal had been a long-held policy intention. It was "long-held" in the sense that during the period of Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021, it was announced that the portal was forthcoming. It took four to five years for it to be launched on a voluntary basis in November 2025 before becoming publicly accessible in June 2026. That was quite a long time. We have to ask ourselves why it took so long. It was mostly not during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic. Getting this information reporting on a statutory basis should have been a priority for the previous Government.
Because this is an omnibus Bill, I want to add to the discussion of the provisions relating to the Institutional Burials Act 2022 which extend the participation in the identification programmes to first cousins. I have listened to a few of the speeches about the traumatic impact on many survivors and families. This amendment, following on from Forensic Science Ireland's confirmation that you can reliably get the DNA information from cousins, is going to help in some cases. It will, we hope, give more answers to extended family members who are seeking to identify remains at the site of the former mother and baby institution in Tuam, where forensic excavations began last year.
On the wider picture, and this is a point that other Deputies have raised, we have to question the barriers being thrown in front of people. The forensic barrier might be lowered to some extent with this widening of the DNA identification process, but survivors, their relatives and legal advocates will tell you that our historical culture of State secrecy has stopped people from getting information. It has improved in recent years, but the institutional records and commission archives were sealed for 30 years. If closure for survivors includes finding out and identifying, but also getting proper information, we need to make it as easy as possible to access the archives. In the scope of this omnibus Bill, which is small but important, can we, as Deputy Currie and others have asked, accommodate further measures to access information on the pay gap side and especially in relation to survivors? If first cousins are now legally recognised as eligible family members for the purposes of physical identification, they should also have a right to access institutional administrative records that concern their families. We should consider whether amendments could be introduced on Report Stage to link the physical identification rights with meaningful access to information. We have been gradually pulling aside the squinty curtain in our society but many things are still hidden. If anything, we should be trying to get more information into the open and once and for all rid ourselves of that shameful period.
---
Home Heating Oil Costs: Motion - Tuesday 13th October, 2026
I do not care if it is a carbon tax cut or a rebate but we have to help people who are suffering and who cannot afford the current short-term increases in fuel. However, some people come out in a rash if you mention the words "carbon tax". It is the great populist stick to hit people with. Everything is: blame the carbon tax or blame my former Green Party colleagues. The carbon tax, when it is working properly, is supposed to encourage people to change their modes, work towards cleaner and greener methods of energy and raise the money to fund other things. Unfortunately, that has not happened enough. The people who are stuck with kerosene cannot afford to heat their homes. People in social housing are not getting the retrofits they need. The money has to come from somewhere for that and I have pointed that out before. We need to give the short-term help but we also need to look at the bigger picture. I referenced that in my budget speech.
I want to focus on another element. COM(2026)502 is a European Parliament proposal for the regulation of measures strengthening Europe's cloud and artificial intelligence, AI, ecosystem, the Cloud and AI Development Act, CADA. That basically says that Europe wants to invest more in its own cloud storage, which means a lot more data centres in Europe. It means that even though we are under pressure and people's consumer prices are impacted without corresponding measures because of a reliance on data centres in this country, Europe is going to be looking for more. In my budget contribution, I said we need to spend €20 billion on grid, €10 billion on hydrogen and another €20 billion on other things. Why do we not get the European Union to fund our grid upgrade? Then we can have as many data centres as we want and we will also have affordable electricity while exporting like the Arabs are with fossil fuels at the moment.
---
Budget 2027
Budget Main Speech - Including impact on constituency - 7th October 2026 - Deficiencies in transport, childcare, public health nurses, amenities
Budget Cigarettes, Vapes, Psychoactive substances - 6th October, 2026
Budget Introduction - 6th October, 2026
---
Rolling update - As of 4th October, 2026, Paul "has spoken in 209 committee discussions and Dáil debates in the last year — well above average among TDs", according to kildarestreet.com analysis website.
This "well above average" has been consistent since re-election in October 2024, and referenced in December 2025 and July 2026, but we are doing snapshots from now on to show a consistent performance rather than ramping up closer to the next general election. This is just one performance indicator, but it shows I take my time in the Dáil seriously. Outside of Leinster House, I do regular café clinics and also call directly to thousands of homes each year. Hopefully the balance has been struck between keeping in touch locally and being active nationally.
---
Windfall Tax on the Excess Profits of Energy Companies: Motion - Wednesday 30th September, 2026
We know that some of the energy price rises are due to international factors beyond our control. It is a bit like a broken record at this stage. As my predecessor said, we know that because the electricity market operates on a system of marginal pricing and the most expensive form of power needed to meet demand at a given moment sets the price for 100% of the market. Right now, we know that is gas. I mentioned that our reliance on data centres and encouragement of them at a time when they are pushing up to almost maximum grid capacity means that will feed more gas into the system and everyone will pay a higher price as a result.
While data centres give a lot in local rates to county councils, they are still not paying their fair share. That is why I support the motion. There needs to be a dividend for hard-pressed consumers from companies making excessive super profits and the energy and electricity companies which, as others have mentioned, are making way too much at a time when everyone else is stuck to the pin of their collar. In that context, we need to be real.
I disagree with my Independent Ireland colleague who said the carbon targets are way above what we can actually meet. We should go even further and be a leader in Europe. We have that potential in terms of mass battery storage and conversion to green hydrogen and private wires, which I have been banging on about for years. We have the potential to be a net exporter of energy and gain huge revenue. We would then be able to get revenue from data companies because we would have spare capacity. We need massive investment, and borrow if we need to, in order to do that. Unfortunately, we do not have the vision. We are dealing with crisis management at a time when international factors are at play. We need to look at the bigger picture more quickly.
—-
Need to reform family law courts and court-appointed experts (again) - 30th September, 2026
---
Migration and Citizenship: Statements - Wednesday 30th September, 2026
It is good to have the opportunity to talk about this. I know Senators did a couple of days ago. When the legislation comes forward, I hope we have ample debating time. I told the Tánaiste that we need a citizens' convention on citizenship, immigration and asylum issues. We need to have a proper debate, get rid of the myths and the conspiracy theories and look at facts and figures. Sometimes the facts and figures will suit those perceived to be right wing and sometimes they will suit those perceived to be left wing but to be clear, morally, anyone who has made a contribution to this country should have a pathway to citizenship. It does not mean it should be an easy pathway because Irish citizenship is a privilege and not a right but so many people have contacted me who have been here and applied for citizenship on the basis of five years and now they fear it is going to go to eight years. For anyone who has applied, it would be totally unfair for that to change during his or her application.
I think five years is enough if the application process is tough enough in the first place. That means stringent language requirements not just in one language, such as Irish or English, but the ability to demonstrate some proficiency in the other language along with a knowledge of cultural norms, how the electoral system operates in this country, how the various State agencies operate and what is expected in terms of being a law-abiding citizen. In that context, there are many here who are already making a good contribution to our country who should be rewarded through that pathway.
Then we have people who are fleeing persecution. We know that at least 30% of those who go through the system are found on appeal to be genuinely fleeing war and persecution. They need to be protected and they also need a pathway but, equally, they have to follow the same cultural norms and have to have the same learning requirements to become citizens rather than protected residents. There are others in this country who have committed crimes, have been told they have to leave and have not left. That has to stop. That is what a balanced process is.
---
Investment in Education - Tuesday 29th September, 2026
---
SLAPP legislation - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill 2026 - Tuesday 29th September, 2026
Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Is ceann an-tábhachtach atá ann. I welcome the Bill. It is important legislation that facilitates legitimate criticism of institutions and corporate interests. If it is done right, it balances the fear of legal threats and, on the other side, vexatious or potentially defamatory statements. We have heard that this Bill is a direct and necessary response to EU Directive 2024/1069, the anti-SLAPP directive. To be a little bit facetious, it is taking its time. The EU has had to give Ireland a little slap on the wrist to get the legislation moving. Throughout Europe, including here in Ireland, we have been very slow in implementing legislation to protect people. We have seen a disturbing rise in powerful corporations and wealthy individuals basically weaponising our legal system. They are not doing this for justice. Sometimes they are not even doing it to protect their good name but rather to chill debate and discourse and silence those who are speaking truth to power, especially investigative journalists, environmental activists, community groups and individuals who have legitimate concerns. This Bill, in the rightful way, targets those who threaten public interest advocates with some form of financial ruin. Looking at it from a non-expert point of view, it provides a good level of protection, for example offering early dismissal of groundless claims, moving the burden of proof back onto wealthy plaintiffs and forcing litigants to post security for costs.
However, the small person, such as a local campaigner, blogger or small community group, still has barriers because within the Irish defamation framework, groups such as the Law Society of Ireland say that we still lack a serious harm test. Damage to reputation is legally presumed here from day one. Plaintiffs can launch lawsuits without ever having to prove an actual or tangible financial loss, which means they can still - the Minister of State is going to elucidate on this later - intimidate defendants to some degree. We need more clarity on this. As my colleagues in the House have said, we possibly need related amendments on Committee Stage. Another angle is that if a defendant wants to get a case thrown out early, as Deputy Tóibín mentioned, he or she has to prove that a claim is manifestly unfounded. That is a very high legal hurdle because a well-funded corporate legal team can tie a case up for a long time and draft a claim that looks plausible on paper, but to the ordinary citizen, who has an information deficit in many cases, it basically forces them to face the prospect of a full trial and definitely makes them think it is going in that direction. That in itself has a chilling effect.
Regarding the costs, the very act of hiring a legal team to file the anti-SLAPP application costing thousands of euro is going to be prohibitive for some. Very small NGOs, community groups or individuals might not have these funds. It is still hard to get backing for legal cases in a proper manner. For small persons, therefore, there is still a risk that their home is going to be taken away from them if they raise this issue. When I was a councillor, for example, a pub wrote to me saying that when I had said that people crossing over a median to go to the pub were taking their lives into their hands, that was defamatory against the pub. I had to rephrase my remarks in a certain way because I did not have any means at the time. If we multiply that for people raising genuine public issues, we see that we have to get the legislation right.
---
A cunning plan by "Dr Evil" and time up for this Government - Public Transport and Fare Increases: Motion - Tuesday 29th September, 2026
---
Fuel, Energy and Carbon Tax Relief: Motion - Wednesday 23rd September, 2026
It is unfortunate that successive Governments, going back to the abolition of domestic rates in the seventies, have been very dependent on excise duty revenue. We do not have a very broad tax base. When pressure is felt, there is a question mark in the accounts about how, if this income is reduced, it might impact on our overall day-to-day spending budget. I am sure everyone in the Government is at least aware of how much people are feeling the pinch right now, especially those in rural Ireland, who are more dependent on cars and on kerosene for fuel. They must be given a break, however temporary it might be, given the mayhem Trump is facilitating around the world.
At the same time, with the effects of climate change becoming more apparent, we are conscious that we must wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels. I have mentioned energy self-security 15 or 20 times in the Chamber since I was re-elected in 2024. We must address our addiction to fossil fuels from the Middle East and elsewhere and become self-sufficient through the use of green hydrogen, electric vehicles and biofuel. We must become a net exporter of energy and have a quid pro quo when the sun is shining and the waves are moving. We need to be in a position to get the revenue from the data centres and to be 100% self-sufficient in respect of our public transport needs.
I will focus in particular on public transport and electricity because we are trying to get people off fossil fuels, but the reality is they have no option but to drive vehicles that run on those fuels. There are not enough incentives to drive EVs. In all the new housing estates, for example, the current policy is to put in a few EV chargers, which is great, but residents are paying a commercial rate to big business. They are not being charged at the domestic tariff. I am lucky enough to live in a house that was built in the 1960s. I have a driveway and can charge my EV using a cable, for which I pay a very cheap overnight rate. People are being encouraged to buy into new home developments in places like Adamstown, Kilcarbery, Seven Mills and Citywest, all of which are in my constituency, but they cannot even get a parking space. If they manage to win the fight for a space, they cannot put a cable under the ground for charging their EV because that is against planning law. Technology exists in Portugal that allows people to key in a code and pay a domestic-type tariff for their EVs. If we had that type of technology, we would accelerate the move towards electric vehicles that can be powered more by the grid.
At the moment, some of the energy produced by wind is going to waste because we do not have the capacity to store it.
We are so dependent on gas as the baseline that we are paying an excess in electricity prices. People are being screwed left, right and centre because of the lack of vision in Government circles. I have spoken before about the need to invest in the grid infrastructure so that we can have private, home production and people are not disincentivised from storing solar electricity in a battery at home and, if there is a power cut, using the power in their homes rather than having to switch off, like so many houses do at the moment, especially when it is tied to an Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, grant.
We need to think about the big picture, but this motion is about the small or more immediate picture. The more immediate picture is that people are strung out trying to pay costs they have no alternative to in the short term. We need to start moving more towards the big or macro picture and increase momentum while - it is not a dichotomy - trying to help people out during the current crisis, because it is a global crisis. It is not either-or. If we are trying to wean people off fossil fuels, we are going about it the wrong way by increasing public transport prices and having ghost buses in the estates I mentioned. Even if people have the choice, they will not make it because they do not know whether they will get to work reliably. It is a mess, but it is within the Government's power to sort out some of it very quickly.
---
Disability (Amendment) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Wednesday 23rd September, 2026
I welcome aspects of the Disability (Amendment) Bill 2026. The Minister of State can argue that it is absolutely required, but in another way it is just a reflection of ongoing State failure. For over 20 years, it could be argued that the State has breached its own laws under the Disability Act 2005, which has left so many thousands of vulnerable children without access to services. In this context, we could call any sort of move towards a needs-based approach a positive step because a child should not need a complex medical label just to get their basic speech and language therapy sessions.
Giving the HSE the power to get rid of the defunct applications from the list will give a more accurate picture of the backlog and will reduce the backlog to a degree but the backlog will still be massive. This Bill does not address the actual historical lack of services. The law stipulates that an assessment must take place within six months and yet the reality on the ground, as others have mentioned, is different. Groups are saying different things but the statistics indicate a wait of about 24 to 27 months and in some cases three to five years in individual worst cases. As others have said, it has been estimated that roughly 21,000 children are overdue assessments in the country.
I acknowledge that the State has spent a lot of money on services but the State has also spent about €23 million on legal fees fighting parents in courts and that money could have been put into the front-line services. Groups like Inclusion Ireland and AsIAm have repeatedly pointed out that the change in the rules does not mean anything when we still have a 30% vacancy rate across the children's disability network teams. Those teams need to be filled.
Deputy Seán Crowe raised an issue in this Chamber relating to one particular area in Tallaght in CHO 7. The constituency I share with the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, including areas like Saggart, Rathcoole, Lucan, Palmerstown and Clondalkin, has one of the worst bottlenecks in the State. I believe it was Chamber House that Deputy Crowe referenced which had a 53% staff vacancy rate, which means a lot of families were left absolutely stranded.
Thousands of families have been told that a child is a so-called "open case" but they have never received a first contact from a therapist. The definition changes here will not create those speech and language therapists. We want to see real investment in staff. I know sometimes in other areas of the health and family support services it has been difficult to actually get to that. I acknowledge there is a challenge. This legislation will not get any educational psychologists or other psychologists for families in Newcastle or Rathcoole.
Others might argue that this Bill is purely a cynical exercise in legal risk management, a way to stop parents from suing the State by lowering the bar in terms of what constitutes an assessment. I do not believe that but the Government will be open to accusations unless it backs up some of the measures in this legislation with increased staffing levels so that we can see the number of people on the waiting list coming down.
---
Defective Concrete Blocks Social Homes Scheme 2026 - Wednesday 23rd September, 2026
I join other speakers in welcoming that 2,400 social housing units are being brought into the scheme. It is an entirely necessary, if somewhat delayed, move. However, as colleagues also mentioned, the proposal, in its current form, basically creates a two-tier system that again treats social housing tenants as second-class citizens. We saw that in the quality of construction of some social homes, with levels of insulation being historically of inferior construction and design, although that has improved in more recent times. While private homeowners are still not getting the 100% redress they want, they will be able to avail of the independent technical review mechanisms.
However, local authority tenants will not have the same safeguard. Private owners who dispute an engineering assessment have some way of appealing it and challenging decisions. Unfortunately, the poor social housing tenants do not have that ability. While I can see why this would be organised by approved housing body or on an estate-by-estate basis, rather than by individual tenants, the latter should still be able to have a voice. They are living in, or are unable to live in, conditions that are absolutely substandard. If they want to challenge some sort of remediation works that have been outlined, they cannot do so individually. They are supposed to accept whatever the council decides. As I have seen, when planning and rezoning proposals are foisted on people with no infrastructure provision guaranteed, council officials are often inclined not necessarily to do the bidding of the Government but certainly not to be seen to fight back against it, at least not in the public eye. In that context, we need the same type of guaranteed technical oversight for social housing tenants as is proposed for private homeowners. There are only 2,400 social housing units involved at the outset but perhaps there should be a representative expert people can call upon or some other means of giving them a stake in this. The people living in social houses are stakeholders even if they do not have legal ownership rights.
In introducing this scheme, the Government is trying to move towards parity between private owners and social housing tenants. However, as Deputy Charles Ward has said time and again, there is no point in giving redress unless it is 100% redress. Private homeowners are not getting what they absolutely need and people in public sector housing are getting even less.
It is not parity. The situation is that those in private households can possibly better afford top-up loans, whereas people who live in AHB or council homes cannot do that in order to get the final bits done. Will the likes of the county councils in Donegal, Mayo or the other counties where issues have been identified find the requisite additional funding to bridge gaps? That is, of course, if they are in a position to identify those gaps in the first place. This needs to be revisited to make sure that any queries that are genuinely raised by people can and are seen to be addressed.
---
Home Heating Oil (Emergency Mineral Oil Tax Reduction) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Tuesday 22nd September, 2026
The Home Heating Oil (Emergency Mineral Oil Tax Reduction) Bill 2026 targets the specific burden of the carbon tax on kerosene. Others have provided figures. I looked at a 500 litre fill, which is about 80.41 cent in carbon tax alone. When you add VAT of nearly 23%, you can see that the entire bill is made up of Government-mandated levies. In principle, I support the Bill in terms of the attempt to try to give hard-pressed people who have no other option a dig out. Whether it is a temporary reduction in carbon tax or a retention of the tax and some form of rebate, I do not think it necessarily matters once the money ends up helping people.
Carbon tax is an easy target for some sectors. It is the devil incarnate for some political groupings. Carbon tax, if done properly, represents an attempt to encourage those who can afford to do so to spend their money on cleaner, greener ways of living, thereby reducing the country's carbon emissions, which would have a knock-on effect for everyone. A just transition means that when you bring in money from carbon tax, you help the poorest in society. That has not always happened. For example, there are people in local authority houses who are waiting for them to be insulated. The roll-out of insulation works for such housing is absolutely abysmal. Some people are benefiting more from the way the carbon tax has been rolled out.
We have to have measures in terms of our EU and global climate obligations and in the context of they way climate change is manifesting, but we also have to look at the wars in Ukraine and Iran. Both have a lot to do with Trump, whether it is directly in terms of putting pressure on the Russians or specifically in relation to assisting Israel in targeting Iran but not getting anything out of it. I have said before that I have no grá for the regime in Iran, but Trump’s policies have caused mayhem everywhere and are hitting Irish people left, right and centre.
It is very hard for people to get by. That is why, one way or another, I hope the Minister of State will take on the spirit of the Bill and look at people, particularly those in rural areas. I live in an urban constituency, but I know that rural areas have a higher level of oil usage. People in such areas do not have access to natural gas and it is harder for them to get a one-stop shop in a semi-detached kind of setting. As a result, their bills tend to be higher and they do not necessarily get supports. It can cost €15,000 to €18,000 for a very basic retrofit, up to €80,000 if you are doing it properly and more if you are getting the whole house refurbished. It is not something you can just do and say, “My bills have gone up by an extra €2,000 that I do not have this year, so therefore I am going to get the house wrapped or put in solar”. It does not work that way. There is a middle ground in terms of rolling out loans that pay back. In other words, your energy bill stays the same and whereby, over ten to 15 years, you start to make a saving. We need more of that type of model as well as direct interventions in respect of local authority housing. Given the way Trump is going on and in view of the uncertainty globally, over the next six months we have to help people who are suffering. Reducing their cost of home heating oil is one way of doing so. That is why I support the thrust of this Bill.
----
Rezonings with no infrastructure - Buses, trains parking, EV charging and other infrastructure deficit and need for joined up thinking - Thursday 17th September, 2026
As we come to the beginning of this term which will bring the Government to two years in office, are we finally going to see some joined-up thinking? The Government has asked councils to rezone additional lands for housing in unsustainable areas when we do not have the infrastructure in place already, in places like Clonburris and Adamstown. They are areas with no electric vehicle charging infrastructure for a domestic tariff and inadequate parking, where people are fighting in Kilcarbery, Seven Mills, Adamstown and Citywest for spaces. The Government is saying this is to encourage a greener society and get people to use public transport but the public transport does not exist. There is an inadequate train network and the buses keep being missed. The P29 express service, for example, was missed four times out of four two weeks ago and twice today and yesterday. There is No. 13 and the C-spine routes. All over my constituency, the buses are not turning up. The National Transport Authority is not accountable to anyone and is not fit for purpose. If the Government is also increasing the fares, it is giving a big middle finger to people in my constituency. Where is the joined-up thinking that says if more housing is going to be put in, it will have facilities and infrastructure alongside it and buses that actually exist?
Every local authority is probably conducting the review of their own county development plan at the moment. It is important in that review that we are all increasing our housing targets and the allocations that we have been given, and that we are making sure land is zoned on land that is appropriate, but also that land can be opened up where it needs to be. To support that, there is a significant fund that has already been provided. More will be provided at a later date but money has already been provided to local authorities to open up lands to provide infrastructure, whether roads, electricity or water, in the right place and where it is appropriate. Then our towns and our cities can grow and expand because that is where we have a lot of the infrastructure while at the same time making sure that in rural communities, people can build homes on their land, whether they live locally or are born locally. It is about getting that balance right. We have a national development plan of over €100 billion and much of that is to make sure we are delivering houses in the right places and the infrastructure is there so that people can access them and the local authorities can deliver them.
--
Tax Discs, traffic data and enforcement - National Vehicle and Driver File, Road Traffic and Roads Bill 2026: Second Stage - Thursday 17th September, 2026
As an Opposition TD who tries to be constructive, I broadly welcome the National Vehicle and Driver File, Road Traffic and Roads Bill 2026. Many elements of it are welcome and will bring driving regulations and monitoring somewhat into the 21st century. The decision to finally abolish the paper motor tax discs is an important measure. For decades we forced motorists to have this piece of paper on their windscreens while the rest of society moved ahead with digitalisation. As such, moving to a digital system, backed by an online verification portal, makes a lot of sense, just as it did in the UK perhaps 14 years ago. I will mention the separate but related issue of insurance discs in a while.
The introduction of open-ended non-use declarations also makes sense, as it will get rid of an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for thousands of vintage car enthusiasts, mechanics, people who fix cars and citizens who have their car off the road for whatever reason. Removing some of the bureaucracy is very welcome.
I also welcome the legal framework to finally resume the sharing of traffic collision data between An Garda Síochána and local authorities. This is crucial but has been unfortunately delayed because councils cannot engineer safer roads if they do not have full information about where accidents are occurring. In this context, while the Bill is a welcome step, this Government and its predecessor have already failed the broader test of dealing with the deadly crisis unfolding on our roads. As we all know, we are in the middle of a devastating spike in road fatalities, which are up significantly on the number in 2025. Depending on which figures are used, road fatalities are up 17% on last year and are rising at a time when the European Union average is falling. That is shocking and concerning. The crisis has grown because it has not been dealt. If we take the delay in delivering this Bill as an example, the previous Government allowed strict GDPR limitations and interpretations to legally block councils from getting collision data since November 2023, even though the Data Protection Commission explicitly stated that GDPR should not prevent proportionate publication of crash location details, especially when the technology exists to get rid of personal identifiers by anonymising or limiting the data.
The critics of this asked why the RSA could not just itself strip out names and addresses or pass on the co-ordinates to council engineers. I am wondering whether this was a resourcing issue above all or something else. It has meant that for three years local authorities have been effectively blindfolded. I acknowledge there are patch jobs that were put in, like the locations of interest, so they got some statistics, but one has to ask how many accident black spots went unfixed while this Bill was just dragging on or was not actually formulated in the first place.
While this Bill brings in digital tracking and makes things a lot easier, it is, as other Deputies have said, very quiet on the enforcement of the law. It is great to have a database, but if we do not have enough traffic corps members on the roads to intercept dangerous drivers, it will not work. That is why, as I have said before, we need a separate dedicated traffic police whose members have specific powers in relation to the roads and who do not even have to be members of An Garda Síochána. That is a model that works in other countries. The databases that we will improve on will not breathalyse the drivers. I take on board what Deputy Tóibín said about being stopped and breathalysed at 10 o'clock in the morning. I was breathalysed by a garda at 8 o'clock in the morning. I said, "You are on the ball." He said that it was part of Drew's measures and that they had to do that before they clocked off. To me, it makes more sense to try to catch people when they are actually under the influence. We do not have new digital measures stopping and seizing unroadworthy vehicles when they are actually on the road. Yes, it can be traced back, but sometimes you have to stop the people when they are actually out there. You nab them on the spot.
A bugbear of mine is the person who drives for a full kilometre in a bus lane. The R136 in my constituency is a case in point. I have a lot of sympathy for people who, if they are turning towards a left lane, get into the bus lane so as to avoid queuing. They are not blocking any buses and not blocking any traffic and are able to make a turn, but how long is a piece of string? I have seen people go along for the full kilometre and then bump in front of someone else. That practice irritates other drivers and is breaking the law but it is increasing. I have seen it anecdotally a lot more in the past two or three years than I had done in the previous ten. I have had reports from constituents of those idiots who break the pedestrian lights in heavy traffic, not just when they are going at speed but also when they are going to work during school times, when the traffic is busy. They go through the lights and sometimes push past the school traffic wardens as well. We need that physical element of policing.
We also have to look at the gaps that the legislation fails to fill. I again refer to Jax's law, which I was happy to co-sign recently. I will not repeat everything Deputy Barry Ward, who is proposing it along with Deputy Currie, said earlier, but this legislation highlights one of the important gaps in our core road traffic framework, that is, that the law still fails to legally recognise the loss of an unborn child caused by dangerous driving. If the Government is fully committed to comprehensive reform, mechanisms to address gaps like Jax's law could be integrated into this legislation, as Deputy Ward said. The Department should do it rather than waiting for Deputy Ward to put the amendment in himself. That would be better than having grieving families campaigning on the margins, hoping that the Bill gets to Second Stage and other Stages through other means. If Jax's law could be added into the wording, I would certainly support amendments to that effect.
Earlier today, I mentioned the lack of joined-up thinking in transport and planning as regards buses, trains, parking spaces and EV charging facilities in new developments. People are told they cannot have parking spaces because they have this fantastic public transport service, so they have to drive but they have nowhere to park. People get frustrated because of this. They get agitated. They have been fighting with their neighbour to try to get a parking space. Now they are rushing out to get to a place that you need to take three buses, which do not always turn up, to get to. We have to understand what is required in new developments. If we are going forward, all speeds in new developments should be 10 km/h - as simple as that - not the 30 km/h and 10 km/h and then a crawl out of it allowing people to move at normal speed, but allowing people to actually park their cars so their relatives can visit or they can get to work. At the moment we are just creating extra aggression on the roads, and that is the last thing we need in terms of people responding because if someone does something untoward on the road and you are already agitated, you will get madder and respond in a way that you would not normally do.
We also need more work on graduated penalties for repeat non-compliant offenders and issues like managing unregulated e-scooters and e-bikes. Again, that is about catching them rather than some welcome legislation that we have coming later this year in that regard.
Others have mentioned the quality of the roads. I second that. Some of the roads are in very bad nick. Again, I have a personal bugbear about what seem to be very low speed limits on dual carriageways. I know traffic has to be managed, including heavy traffic like on the M50, for example, where you cannot go too fast or you will crash, especially in the rain, but sometimes the speed limit on good-quality roads seems to be quite low and then on the regional roads it is way too high. Some work, I have to acknowledge, has been done on that, but we need more.
We need more in terms of training in pursuit. Deputy Tóibín mentioned the six gardaí who will be trained by the end of this year. That is too little too late in terms of trying to catch people out and about doing robberies and going up the wrong way on dual carriageways, as we have tragically seen recently.
On the insurance issue, I notice that the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland has information that can be shared with the Garda in terms of automatic numberplate recognition etc., but I would love to see insurance discs gone as well as the motor tax discs on cars. There should be a way of working that, maybe not in this legislation but soon.
Broadly, I welcome the Bill but we have to put resourcing into enforcement as well.
---
Data Centres and electricity prices - Energy Policy: Motion - Thursday 17th September, 2026
I support this motion in principle. I have a couple of queries about what is implementable and what is not, but the hard-pressed people of Ireland, faced with rising costs, need a little bit more help in terms of energy prices at the moment while also trying to move toward a more sustainable future. For many years, people in Ireland have been told that our electricity bills, which I think are now the third highest in the European Union, are simply the result of international factors beyond our control. In some ways, that is true. Looking at gas, which I am about to get on to, global gas prices have risen internationally and conflict has contributed to that. The reason we are dependent on gas is because the electricity market operates on the system of marginal pricing, which means that the most expensive form of power needed to meet demand at any given time sets the price for 100% of the market. Right now, we are dependent on fossil gas for that. In the future, it could be different. If I have time, I will outline a couple of suggestions, which may already be in the Government mindset, but it is the pace I am worried about.
Why are we burning so much gas when we have all this existing wind potential? I have mentioned wave and tidal before. The answer right now lies in the uninhibited growth of data centres, which are consuming nearly a quarter of our metered electricity in this State, which matches the usage of every single residential home in Ireland. These data centres are operating 365 days a year, basically. The demand is completely inflexible, so when the wind stops blowing, that baseload does not end up dropping. Instead, we are forced to fire up the gas generators - diesel has, which is also a fossil fuel and has cost implications, has been referenced as well - to keep the data centre servers cool. Under the market rules, the gas does not just price electricity for the tech giants. Rather, it prices electricity for the family trying to heat their home in Clondalkin, Saggart, Rathcoole, Lucan, Adamstown, Brittas, Palmerstown or elsewhere throughout the country. Data centre demand has inflated wholesale electricity prices by up to 8.5%, maybe more, which has put hundreds of euro in extra costs on the average household in recent years as part of a rise in energy and household prices.
We cannot look at data centre policy on its own and energy policy separately. They are together. The current trajectory is placing an unfair tax, for want of a better term, on Irish families to subsidise what is still an unsustainable demand on our grid. If the data centres were not there in the first place, a lot more of our supply would be provided by renewables and we would not have the same dependence on gas. We need to review the data centre grid connections. There is already another application in my constituency for a licence to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The message has not gone out to these companies yet, and I do not think it is Government policy to say that it is an unwelcome place for data centres. I have mentioned before the brave new future where we could be producing so much excess capacity that we could afford to operate data centres and be the data centre hub of Europe as one of the major energy producers. There is huge revenue potential, irrespective of the fairly minuscule job creation element associated with them.
As of now, we are going to have to work within Europe to reform the marginal pricing system that is penalising consumers for the corporate energy demands of multinationals. It is penalising the producers of renewable energy, basically. The figures are staggering. When a single sector consumes nearly a quarter of our national electricity and ordinary families face a crushing cost-of-living crisis, it beggars belief. I am kind of lost for words in terms of how to put it, but if you ask an ordinary constituent whether they feel they have been fleeced by data centres, they would say, "Absolutely". They feel they are not getting the support. The Government supports for electricity pricing over the last couple of years were very welcome. The current fuel allowances are very welcome. One half of me says that I do not like subsidising fossil fuels to keep cars and buses going. Another part of me acknowledges that some of the electricity produced is from fossil fuel as well. We need to reduce our dependence on these supplies and reduce our carbon emissions. When you look at what is actually impacting on people in their bottom pocket, you have to take a two-pronged approach. Even if we need to borrow strategically to create that energy self-sufficiency, it will benefit us in the medium term.
I have a couple of queries about the specific mechanisms in this motion in terms of legal hurdles, which give the Government an excuse to do nothing. From the research I have done, a legislative ban would violate Article 49 of the EU treaty on the freedom of establishment. That would leave the State vulnerable to court action and multibillion euro damages claims. This electricity levy to raise the €500 would also violate EU Regulation 2019/943 on non-discriminatory grid access. In terms of ring-fencing money directly for a household credit, that would clash with Article 11 in our own Constitution in terms of where taxes are collected and how they are distributed. However, that does not mean that the sentiment of this motion is not 100% right. We have to find a work-around so that we do not have legalese blocking Government action.
To achieve the goals through legally enforceable pathways, there might be a couple of other approaches, such as legally codifying the strictest possible version of the CRU's large energy users policy and mandating that no data centre can connect to the grid unless it has its own off-grid supply of battery storage and is relying 100% on renewables. Personally, I do not think any new data centre should be built for the next ten years until we get to a point where we are more comfortable in our energy generation. We could still levy some corporation tax off these companies, as it stands, to make sure that Irish families get some sort of a subsidy.
We are at a critical juncture in terms of our energy self-sufficiency and our potential. What would get rid of our dependence on gas as the baseline? If we put the investment in, mass battery storage would be one element to store all the daytime wind, solar, tidal and wave, which we are not even properly investing in, and replace the gas plants during evening peaks. The creation of new interconnectors would create further links to France and the UK.
If we have to import cheap nuclear or solar power from Spain when the domestic wind is low, so be it. Until we get to the point where we are producing three or four times our actual needs, it will be a quid pro quo and we will benefit from that. That means we have to overbuild our own capacity for wind as well as for tidal and wave so that the grid is always renewable no matter what. Even on low-wind days when we are taking the solar from Spain, the pricing will be fixed in such a way that it is not dependent on fossils to set it. We could look at fixed-price contracts to have steady lower rates of renewable developers for decades. That could be done at EU level, bypassing the market price on a day-to-day basis for fossil fuels.
While it would be more expensive to implement now, green hydrogen is also a solution. Once you get to the point where you have built your hydrogen infrastructure and it is produced from excess renewables then the hydrogen can also replace gas to make sure we do not have any kind of winter blackouts. I am foreseeing that will be a possible solution for the 2030s and as we move into the 2040s, if we put the investment in. As Deputy Heneghan has so eloquently said so often, we have to get the grid right and allow the private generators and home generators to access and share the energy and have a more sustainable individual, local grid as well as having one big national one that is upscaled for renewable generation off the west coast which is not the case now. If we put in all that work, which will cost tens of billions, that will reap rewards. We will be the energy Arabs of Europe in the 2040s at a time when other countries will need access to that energy, not only for heating and transport but also for cooling depending on how the climate change situation goes. It will all be renewable and will have lowered our carbon emissions to virtually nothing. We have the potential if we have the vision.
---
Stop and Search and general resourcing - Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026 [Seanad]: Second Stage - Wednesday 16th September, 2026
Some of us have just received messages that Deputy Michael Healy-Rae is in hospital following an alleged assault. I put on record my best wishes for him in his recovery and my absolute condemnation - no matter what viewpoint people have - of attacks on politicians male or female. I condemn it wholeheartedly and wish him a speedy recovery.
I broadly welcome the passage of the Bill through the Seanad. It takes the long-overdue step of streamlining stop-and-search procedures, digital device warrants and integrating the European Union's human rights directives into our domestic laws. However, during the Seanad debates Senator McDowell warned, for example, that we cannot compromise the basic human rights of people in terms of shielding journalistic privilege from digital searches. We have to look after people’s basic human rights. Civil liberties watchdogs like the Irish Council for Civil Liberties demanded accountability through the mandatory recording requirements during police stops of people’s background and ethnicity to ensure people were not being targeted.
There is sometimes a fair accusation that police forces throughout the world can and do engage in profiling and targeting, whether of people in disadvantaged areas or those from particular ethnic backgrounds or nationalities. By the same token – this is another reason I regret it is not being covered here and I hope it will be by other means – sometimes it is also useful to be able to determine the nationality of people arrested for offences. We had some, to an extent discredited, reportage in England, for example, suggesting one or two nationalities were up to 22 times more likely to be arrested for sexual offences. When that was brought down it ended up being 3.5 to 14 times more likely than the English average, so even allowing for racial profiling and targeting of particular nationalities, there are questions raised in terms of cultural norms in certain backgrounds that are applicable when people have concerns about large concentrations of people from those backgrounds in particular areas. This raises the issue of education, training and monitoring. There is a win-win situation there for those who think the immigrant population is more likely to assault people, which it is not, and for those who want to ensure gardaí do not go around targeting people willy-nilly, which in general they do not. However, you have to have scrutiny and monitoring to look at these issues and ensure everything has been covered.
That is one angle.
Another angle to the passing of the Bill is the resourcing of measures in a situation where gardaí are already under-resourced. When it comes to logging and entering information, through what system is it logged? I said 20 years ago and on previous occasions in the Chamber that the PULSE system was outdated before it even came into operation. What is the post-PULSE plan for the new data input we will need? Will any kind of new system be rolled out?
Ultimately, it boils down to the actual numbers on the ground. As I said a while back - there have been a few new recruits since - we do not have any more gardaí on the ground per head of population than 2008 because of retirements. In my community recently a boy was beaten up and his bike robbed, and gardaí had still not come to take a statement two days later. People were told there was only one car between two Garda stations and, unfortunately, gardaí could not come to them.
The Minister gave some positive information some time back regarding some of the backlogs that impact Garda time. For example, in respect of an antisocial behaviour order a Garda of the rank of sergeant or above has to go to court. Gardaí have to be witnesses in the court system. I would like some confirmation on whether video statements can be used more frequently and how that is progressing. As well as trying to increase Garda numbers, we need to make more efficient usage of Garda time. A bunch of kids under 12 were trying to rob bikes in a local school, which I mentioned in the Chamber some time ago, but when gardaí were called their response was that they were sorry but the car was at the courts at that moment. That is not an acceptable type of response. We cannot blame gardaí for it because they do not have the resources, vehicles or staffing. Equally, public faith in the service has gone. I will come back to this, as I have in regard to consequences for antisocial behaviour among those aged under 18 as well as those aged over 18 down the line. People are getting away with stuff day in and day out. It takes many incidents, perhaps 13 or 14, before people are brought into the system. We need resourcing for juvenile liaison services and additional gardaí.
I am digressing from the specific wording in the Bill for the simple reason that I find myself with a few minutes of extra time. I wanted to elaborate on this as this is the first opportunity after the recess to point out that the attacks have begun again. People are still two abreast on scooters and are robbing bikes with masks on. They are attacking people and getting away with it, or at least they are being seen to be getting away with it because it is six or eight months before they come into the system. We need a faster response. I look forward to the additional legislation on e-scooters.
If we do not have the resources to employ more gardaí or the system cannot catch up fast enough in terms of recruitment numbers, we have to free up Garda time. The use of smarter technology and AI in a safe context and the ability to work remotely in a better way could be integrated into the courts system. That is a discussion the Minister will have to have and I acknowledge the liberty the courts have. We need to free up time for gardaí on the ground to respond to crises. We need more community gardaí to try to anticipate things that happen.
Generally, I broadly welcome the Bill. I would have liked to have seen some more civil liberties protection and information on where people can get rid of misinformation. I also would have liked the Bill to put in place checks and balances to deal with situations where certain nationalities do not respect women in the same way as most people would like.
---
Neutrality and Triple Lock: Motion - Wednesday 16th September, 2026
As others have said, neutrality has been part of who we are for centuries. Since the 1960s our nonaligned stance has allowed us to act as a moral honest broker, an advocate for peace and a supporter of proper humanitarian legal systems on the world stage. As an Independent TD, I believe we must protect that legacy but real neutrality is not free and being militarily neutral does not mean you do not take sides when evil things are being done, as they are in Gaza, in Ukraine and in other conflicts around the world, and as they were in previous conflicts. These conflicts are ones we have not supported or contributed to, except by searching for peace or through brave Irish men and women trying to keep the peace.
Neutrality cannot mean isolation and it cannot mean being completely defenceless. For too long, successive governments and some Opposition parties have used neutrality as a convenient excuse to neglect our armed forces. We cannot protect our sovereign territory, our international waters or indeed our economic zone with platitudes. We must look at the reality of modern security threats. I am thinking of subsea cable monitoring and the boats that are hanging over, which could clip them in 30 minutes, the ongoing cyberwarfare, the trolls online trying to discredit our democratic system, the misinformation being spread and the ability to take out whole grids. That is a power belonging to some of the nefarious state and non-state operators. These and other sinister actions, like the explosions on the Ukrainian border recently, impact directly on Ireland whether we like it or not, so we have to invest seriously in our defence. We have to properly resource our Defence Forces, rebuild our Naval Service in particular and develop decent radar capabilities and proper deterrence against attacks. Obviously we are not going to be able to compete against an overwhelming military force and we would likely have to get into a war of attrition and a guerilla-type campaign but we should not be easily intimidated in our airspace, in our waters or on our land. If we do not invest in defending this critical infrastructure, it does not mean we are being neutral, it just means we are being vulnerable. As we have seen in media reports we are often relying, for this EU Presidency period, on foreign militaries to bail us out, using little tweaks so as not to breach our Constitution.
There is an argument that being neutral also means we have to engage internationally with other forces when our security is threatened. If we are looking for this quid pro quo where our security depends on co-operation with other countries while we are not part of an aggressive military alliance and not taking sides in any operations, we need to get involved in some types of missions. Historically that meant the UN missions which are tied up now due to the Security Council dysfunction I will refer to in a moment. Taking the joint expeditionary force that was referenced, we have to be very cautious about these types of arrangements but I cannot blindly condemn it when it is going to give us intelligence-sharing to monitor our seas and we have an observer status, which is not joining an alliance. We can co-operate with countries and take part in certain types of operations while maintaining our neutral stance. That is possible but caveats have to be spelt out in terms of where we draw the line and a lot of us in Opposition groupings, including me, are cynical about whether that alliance is always going to be adhered to.
I agree we need to safeguard neutrality while becoming militarily self-reliant. However, crucially and with respect to this motion in particular, we need to fix how we authorise our troops’ deployment as peacekeepers because, as I have said here before, the triple lock is broken. It served us well in the past but now it is just a concept because the third lock, which is the United Nations Security Council, is not fixable any time soon. It is very ironic that our sovereign foreign policy is currently vetoed by autocracies and global powers with their own geopolitical agendas which are aggressive in some cases, such as with Russia, or suspicious as with China, and then there is the United States. These countries should not be holding a veto over where Irish peacekeepers, with their proud history of nonaggression and fighting for peace, can deploy. Leaving our defence policy at the mercy of a dysfunctional Security Council does not protect our neutrality; it gives away our sovereignty. However, I agree with my colleagues in opposition that we need a triple lock, though the question is what type. I am open to suggestion but my view is we should replace the UN veto with a requirement for an 80% supermajority in the Dáil and Seanad so four fifths of the Houses must agree before deploying troops. That is another lock that would ensure the government of the day could not abuse our military or casually drag us into foreign conflicts. It would need an overwhelming cross-party consensus. I also believe that if some of our EU partners like Poland or the Baltic states were ever attacked aggressively by the likes of Russia, I do not think we can or should be neutral. That is my opinion, respecting our historical context.
---
Fuel prices debate - Dolly Parton was right about us putting money in the rich man’s wallet - Mineral Oil Tax: Financial Resolution - Friday 28th August, 2026
---
Fiscal Implications of a United Ireland: Statements - Thursday 16th July, 2026
I have been listening to this debate in my office since Deputy Currie started her contribution. I always follow these debates on Irish unity with interest as someone who wants to see a united Ireland by consent. I note that this discussion is focusing on the fiscal elements required to help make it a reality, but these considerations can never be looked at in isolation. During my brief contribution, I will focus on some of the other elements as well.
It is clear that the fiscal and social realities of a potential united Ireland require a lot of actual planning rather than political rhetoric. I would be loath to call a border poll right now because of the risks associated with that, but if a border poll did occur, the State would have to be prepared for the huge structural disruptions that would follow, so we have to start working now - that is why this debate is welcome - without arrogantly presuming it is going to become a reality any time soon, and especially without alienating those of a different background and viewpoint whom we need to bring on board.
We have had discussions about the economic modelling showing the different scenarios and, in some cases, this has been weaponised, depending on one's political outlook. We had the ESRI's €20 billion figure mentioned as the worst-case scenario. We also have other gaps that are much smaller, like a ten-year phased transition, reducing the net annual cost to between €2.5 billion and €3 billion. We then had the middle figure of about €11 billion. We actually do not know how much it is going to cost but we do know it is going to cost something. The debate is really about whether one wants a united Ireland or not, and if we do want a united Ireland, we must be prepared to put up with the cost because there are going to be economic benefits as well as social ones down the line.
The middle-ground figure of €11 billion quoted earlier is more likely a realistic figure, even allowing for the fact that things sometimes become a lot more expensive in this country. Any transition to a united Ireland will require a lot of structural mechanisms, as the Tánaiste said. For example, adopting a single currency, getting rid of the exchange rate volatility and the transaction costs for cross-Border businesses are all advantages. Full re-entry into the EU Single Market for services and removing the jurisdictional barriers are all advantages and allow State bodies to plan for infrastructure, higher education and skills delivery on an all-Ireland basis.
However, the non-financial obstacles are equally severe. There are two parallel administrative systems. There are the healthcare services that others have referenced. Obviously, people in Northern Ireland really like their National Health Service. Merging that with our health service in terms of Sláintecare will require a huge amount of money.
The other angles would be the democratic implications of a vote. As I have mentioned in the House before, if a border poll passes by 52% to 48%, the legal threshold of the Good Friday Agreement is met but the social consensus is not and moving 800,000 citizens into a new state against their explicit, democratic will does risk causing civil unrest. Civil war has been mentioned as an outlier risk but we are talking about localised political polarisation, most likely, stuff that would actually stop a united Ireland from being as viable as it could be. Data from the Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South project confirms fears that loyalist paramilitary violence and instability could remain a deterrent to people voting for a united Ireland.
To mitigate those risks we need a lot of constitutional and institutional accommodation, necessary measures that people might have to swallow. Some have been mentioned in this House, such as a devolved regional assembly in Stormont to preserve local governance for the unionist community, a shared bill of rights protecting the dual Irish-British citizenship, and re-evaluating our relationship with the Commonwealth. Also, our symbols like the flag and the national anthem are things we hold very dear here, but we are going to have to take those risks and be as accommodating as possible. I hope it comes as soon as it is feasibly possible.
---
Ukrainians ARP Scheme - Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 (Section 9(2)) (Amount of Financial Contribution) Order 2025 (Revocation) Order 2026: Motion - Wednesday 15th July, 2026
We took in the Ukrainians as part of a Europe-wide collective effort. We might have been perceived as being more generous than some countries precisely because of our military neutrality. We are not giving weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia, so we did have to go above and beyond. I think that is only right and fair.
A lot of the Ukrainians who have come here have settled. Some of them have got jobs. I do take the point about means-testing in terms of increased contributions within the confines of the ARP payment, for example. There was the original €800. If people have a job and can contribute €200, I think it makes a lot of sense. I do not think cutting it, however, sends out the right message. On the one hand, we are inviting President Zelenskyy to Ireland for the European Presidency, with all the pomp and ceremony, and then we are trying to keep Aughinish Alumina on the sidelines. We are saying slava Ukraini and then basically treating them like dirt. We have an obligation and responsibility to help people, so let us live up to that. I do not think this motion is dealing with the particular circumstances. Ukraine is the first step. The next step will be the Baltics, and the step after that will be Poland. We have to show solidarity in that specific geographic context.
I also mention a separate issue in my constituency. A lot of Ukrainians were staying at the Citywest location. A good portion of these people have disabilities. It now seems they are being sent to the four corners of Ireland. This is in a context where kids have been going to the local schools, people have built up links with local communities, learned the language and are making a contribution. I want to read some excerpts from a letter written by the Ukrainians in Citywest. It stated:
Many Ukrainian people in Ireland are now facing a new and deeply worrying stage in their lives. After fleeing war, rebuilding their lives from nothing, finding work, placing children in schools, accessing medical care, and becoming part of local communities, they are now being told that State-provided accommodation is changing.
This issue is not simply about hotels or accommodation centres. It is about whether people who have already integrated into Irish society will be allowed to keep the stability they have worked so hard to build.
Many Ukrainians in Ireland are working, paying taxes, studying, raising children, supporting family members with disabilities, using local services and contributing to Irish society. For these families, [forced] relocation to another county is not just a change of address. It can mean losing access to work, schools, colleges, doctors, disability services, transport links and community support.
The letter continued:
We are not asking for indefinite hotel accommodation. We are asking for a fair, humane, disability-sensitive and employment-sensitive transition.
The current approach risks causing disproportionate harm to working people, families with children in education, people with autism, PTSD, anxiety, disabilities or complex medical needs, and vulnerable adults already connected with HSE and disability services.
For a disability [related] person, shared toilets, shared corridors, noisy communal spaces and high-density accommodation are not minor inconveniences. They are ... real barriers to basic daily life, [like] using the toilet, washing, eating, sleeping, leaving the room, attending appointments or going to work or college.
The letter also stated that, "Any relocation decision must therefore include an individual assessment of disability-related needs, employment, education, transport, medical care and service continuity." We bring people in and then we put them in a difficult position. This is not the right way to go about it. We could ask the average Ukrainian about this. I met a Ukrainian citizen who moved to Adamstown some years before the war. Some Ukrainians have been living and working in Ireland. The vast majority, however, did not ask to come here. They did not ask to have to stay here so long. We do have this attitude that Ukrainians are basically skiving when they could go back to their own big country. This is what is on social media. Ukraine, however, has a war effort it is trying to sustain, and we need to show solidarity and continue to try to help them as best we can.
---
Childcare Core Funding - 15th July 2026
---
Consequences for Anti-social Behaviour (Yet Again) - Leaders' Questions 14th July, 2026
---
"Jennie's Law" - Domestic Violence Judgments Register Bill 2026 [Seanad]: Committee Stage - Wednesday 15th July, 2026
Yesterday I thanked the Minister for using the Seanad route to get this legislation through so it could be passed before the summer recess. That confirms the Minister's own acknowledgement of the urgency of getting this legislation passed.
There is a balance between the urgency of getting something passed, but also the urgency of getting something passed that is going to impact as well as it could. That is why I support amendment No. 1 and the other suite of amendments because we are not going far enough. In essence, we need to challenge and push things out. If something needs to be tweaked afterwards, that is the better option rather than being very conservative starting out. If we look at the District Court situation, for example in terms of summary convictions, we are talking about convictions of up to 12 months. If I was a woman or if it was my daughter or any family member, and I found out that someone had a conviction of up to 12 months for violently assaulting someone, giving them a black eye or damaging their eye socket, I would want to know about it. These types of incidents start very incrementally. They start off with one thing. It gradually escalates. The violence becomes the norm. The coercive control is brought into it. It is not usually a situation where someone starts off in a controlling relationship as the essence of extreme violence. It works up to that situation. Therefore, you do have to nip it in the bud, so to speak. I am not a legal expert on this but I have been raising issues on the related in camera rule and the need to remove it, because that is going to act as a chilling effect on people reporting cases in the first place. However, anything that encourages reporting has to be welcomed. If we look at where violations of court orders happen, they happen in the District Courts above and beyond. Regarding the type of domestic violence incidences, the vast majority of them are within the District Court as well. We can move beyond that and say we will start off with the most serious cases but the most serious cases are arising because people go away with the less serious cases. These are often people with multiple, sometimes different, convictions in multiple relationships. We are talking about individuals whose violence is not confined to a single relationship. They always blame their partner at the time but these are people with a propensity for violence and that violence is acted out not just on partners but on other people in society as well. If it is not dealt with it right from the outset it is going to create more problems.
I see there are some issues in relation to, for example, starting with the District Court cases in that there might be a risk of retaliation because people know their name is going to be listed. I acknowledge this is a risk. We are having a different level of argument about the three-year process and the right to have their name removed from the register; that is a later discussion, and I believe five years would be more sufficient. At any stage, if they behave themselves, people will have their names taken off the register. However, the types of offences that should go onto the register in the first place should be violent assaults such as giving a partner a black eye. To me, that is sufficient to show that person cannot be trusted. If a relationship breaks up and there is a new partner, they have an absolute right to know about that because next time it could be a broken eye socket or the use of a weapon. We have to deal with it there and then rather than let someone get away with it. Another point is that in a lot of the convictions in the court people do not serve anywhere near the actual sentence they are given. They are out and about, with no real consequences and then they feel a sense of impunity. We have to nip it in the bud. There will be a lot of legal opposition to various aspects of this legislation in any event, so let us just throw the whole lot in - unless what the Minister is really saying is that there is resourcing issues in terms of the District Court's capacity. That is a valid concern as well, but at some stage we have to draw the line and say this is the sort of offence that is not acceptable in any civilised society. You are not allowed to violently attack your partner. We can have nuances and definitions but whacking your partner violently to me is the line we draw. If that is in the remit of the District Court, so be it. It needs to be put on the record to protect the partner and to protect future people.
--
State apology following the publication of the Report of the South East Commission of Investigation: Statements - Tuesday 14th July, 2026
I, too, welcome this belated apology after the final report of the investigation. I pay tribute to the survivors, whose immense personal bravery and persistence finally forced the truth out. It sounds like a platitude because successive Governments and we as a society have treated people with contempt. People were dealing with their own trauma and suffering. Complaints were made in the mid-to-late-eighties, yet the Garda, other agencies, the political elites and others chose to protect this well-connected predator over innocent children. The evidence was sat on for so long until another formal complaint was made in 2012.
This is the modern era. We thought we were over this and that we had dealt with historic abuses in residential institutions and were getting on with stuff. It is shocking it took so long before and after. It was a conscious, systematic cover up. Even now, we have to ask if we have learned everything we need to have learned. The Minister for Health mentioned, we have robust laws like the Children First Act now, but the system is still only as good as the culture and the resourcing. Deputy Tóibín just mentioned Tusla. It is an agency that lurches from crisis to crisis, leaving vulnerable children in unregulated and unsafe emergency hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation and so on. There have been recent reports in the news that there is movement on that, which I welcome, but there are thousands more on waiting lists without a proper social worker and there are a lot of kids who have come to this country through the asylum process who have gone missing.
We need to urgently reform the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 to end what I believe is the forced silencing of survivors under section 11, which criminally gags them from speaking out about their own testimony.
---
"Jennie's Law" - Domestic Violence Judgments Register Bill 2026 - Tuesday 14th July, 2026
---
Protecting the Copyright of Irish Artists in the era of Artificial Intelligence: Motion - Tuesday 14th July, 2026
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, not only as a Teachta Dála but also as someone who trained and worked as a journalist for many years creating original output and as someone who has had stints as a singer-songwriter, writing and recording original works, and who hopes to do so again in the future.
I do see genuine uses of AI as a tool to speed up your creative process and to generate ideas based on your own original human spark and ideas, but, to be clear, the dangers for artists vastly outweigh the benefits, and that needs to be redressed. What is happening brings the name of the band from the 1980s Pop Will Eat Itself to entirely new levels. AI bottom trawls for free, pays nobody their due reward and then regenerates original ideas into a mishmash that sounds plausible, reads plausible and looks plausible, were it not for the fact that the AI output is input-output. It is only as good as what it trawls through.
We have seen the rise of AI artists, AI music, AI authors and AI video generators. Admittedly, some of them are parodies but others are deliberate scams to outline the possibilities of the technology. Increasingly, things are being created for its own sake and the profits do not go to any original artists. Nobody can tell which aspect of a work is being used in the generative process, but it is guaranteed that the graft of artists is nowhere in it. What emerges are not the original ideas of AI, the programmers or the big multinationals that own these companies.
We have had a constant fight over decades to ensure creative work is valued as labour and not treated as a hobby or a free resource. Music artists, for example, had to put up with reduced mechanical and performance royalties from streaming services. Increasingly as Deputy Tóibín referred to, people have sought refuge in live performance. So far, it is the last retreat of human artistic endeavour, but for how long? It used to be that live music was to promote recorded works but now recorded works promote live music to a larger extent. If recorded works are being threatened by AI derivatives where will our future writers, singers, actors and film directors be? They will not exist. In light of that, I welcome the motion.
We in Ireland have always understood that art in itself has value. It is always a work or a craft; even if the process of inspiration can strike like lightening sometimes, it is often honed and edited over a much longer period. We cannot automate this lived human experience or our imagination. I read somewhere recently that our innate evolution as a species was due to becoming storytellers around the fire. People have spent years honing skills that can never be replicated by a machine, yet today we face this challenge that we would not have anticipated years ago.
Fundamentally, the economic foundation of our work as artists, including royalties, licensing commissions and performance fees, are being further eroded. This time, it is not the music industry or the publishing industry but AI and the big tech companies. The motion acknowledges the alarming findings of organisations such as the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers in relation to the explosion of AI-generated streaming fraud and the failure of existing EU mechanisms, particularly the digital Single Market copyright directive of 2019, to provide meaningful control for the artists. AI developers can legally scrape and analyse copyrighted content for training unless the creator has opted out. I will discuss the difficulties to which that gives rise in a moment.
This was originally designed for search engines and data analysis tools, not generative AI, but AI companies now rely on it to justify the mass ingestion of original creative works. Transparency licensing, fair remuneration and accountability are the very least that artists are entitled to if those companies are going to trawl through their work in this way. It is slipping away, especially with the withdrawal of the AI liability directive. The latter would have given artists something we currently do not have, namely a proper mechanism to get compensation or redress when AI systems and the companies that own them essentially misuse our work or cause economic harm through reduced incomes. This directive would have introduced a rebuttable presumption of causality, meaning that if an AI system produced content clearly derived from an artist’s work, the artist would not have to prove every technical detail of how the system ingested, processed and reproduced that work. It basically states that courts may presume a causal link between the system's output and the harm caused, unless the AI developer can prove otherwise. It is a presumption of artistic integrity, and the AI company has to prove it did not steal the work.
The directive would also have required disclosure obligations, thereby allowing courts to compel AI developers to reveal things like training data logs and documentation, information that is currently hidden behind this corporate wall. In welcoming this legislation, I acknowledge that a lot of what we want to do is going to be difficult when it comes to enforceability. That is very common. The directive would have helped big time. The European Commission argues that the AI Act is enough in itself, but it does not offer any civil liability disclosure rights or anything else to win a case. The motion before the House basically calls that out and asks for measures to improve the situation, so I support it. We need infrastructure at EU level to help artists. Even if every word was taken on board and we started from where we are, we will have to follow a process in respect of what is already a race against time.
If we look at how the AI Act could be improved, for starters, there must be mandatory as opposed to voluntary transparency. That is in the code of practice. We need legally enforceable obligations requiring AI developers to disclose exactly what datasets they are using, what copyrighted works are included and how those works are processed. It is quite difficult, but it is technically possible. We need a European-wide registry of copyrighted works used in AI training. That would be the backbone of any licensing system. It does not need to be perfect on day one. It could start off with voluntary submissions, collective management organisations and the major publishers. It does need to start, and we should not listen to threats to the effect that companies will just pull their money and business out of Europe and move elsewhere. That does not wash. Europe is the sanctuary of basic rights. We should stand up for those rights. We also need any opt-outs to be technically enforceable. At the moment, artists can tell companies not to train AI on their work, but developers cannot reliably identify or remove that work from their datasets. The European Union should therefore require dataset tracking. We also need more powers in relation to collective licensing because individual artists do not have that power in the context of individual companies. IMRO, Recorded Artists Actors Performers, the Screen Composers Guild and their European counterparts can. The EU should establish a compulsory licensing framework such that if AI developers want to train on European creative content, then they should pay into a collective pot. That is how radio, television and streaming were made to pay dividends, even if we all argue that those dividends are too low.
As already stated, getting rid of the AI liability directive was a mistake. Artists need a clear path to compensation when their work is misused, where their likenesses are impersonated and where their income is undermined by fraudulent AI content. We could show leadership here. Ireland should use its Presidency of the European Council to push for a more targeted and effective directive. Performers should have explicit legal control over their voice, their face, their movement and their personal and artistic identity. I welcome the motion and hope that the Minister of State will take it on board.
---
Public Health Nurses for Developmental Checks - 8th July 2026
---
A Place Called Home for Adults with an Intellectual Disability: Motion - Wednesday 8th July 2026
I support the motion because there are thousands of parents, many now in their 70s and 80s, who are worried about what will happen when they can no longer care for their child with an intellectual disability. This fear is real because, as referenced previously with regard to the HSE, there is no centrally maintained list for residential services. I know the disability capacity review estimates that Ireland needs at least 1,900 additional residential places by 2032 but this is potentially up to 4,000 if we look at restoring 2008 levels. At the moment more than 2,000 adults are living with parents aged over 70 and, as has been referenced, 500 are living with parents aged over 80. This is why upgrading the disability capacity review is urgent. We need a live database integrating disability supports, housing and people living at home who are not counted among any figures. We need proper capacity planning because we are way behind as it stands.
I believe that incremental progress is possible. Some ideas are to establish a single statutory community living pathway with one referral point, have annual regional targets as well as national targets to reduce emergency placements and out-of-area placements, expand public and not-for-profit provision through multi-annual funding while stabilising existing private placements to avoid forced moves - and as Deputy Coppinger has said, it is not ideal to have the private sector running the show - and publish annual data on distance from home emergency placements and progress on individual community living plans.
This model has worked elsewhere. The LSS Act in Sweden, for example, ensures that people with an intellectual disability have a legal right to community living and the CLBC model in Canada's British Columbia reports that over 90% of adults with intellectual disabilities live in community settings rather than institutional settings. Ireland can follow this path with proper targeted resourcing and recruitment. Every adult with an intellectual disability deserves to be treated with dignity, autonomy and security, and every parent wants this for their child.
Finally, I want to give a very special welcome to all of the visitors from Lucan Youth Fun today.
---
Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026: Second Stage - Thursday 2nd July, 2026 (infrastructure delivery)
The Bill is another piece of omnibus legislation. It tidies up the 2024 Act and is designed to fast-track the judicial review changes, clarify and firm up the ten-year development plan timelines, look at the critical infrastructure and increase the Housing Finance Agency's borrowing capacity. There is a lot contained in the Bill, on one side, but nothing on the other, to be quite honest, because it is primarily enabling legislation, at least in the areas I would like to focus on, namely the critical infrastructure measures and the development plan process.
On paper it is important to facilitate the planning system where development plans, regional strategies and infrastructure delivery can be aligned. I say "can be" because while the Bill mentions and strengthens the transition to a ten-year development plan cycle, which I am agnostic about, it sets the deadlines for regional spatial and economic strategies and allows the Minister of State and his colleagues to designate key towns, which I hope will include suburban areas like Lucan, Clondalkin and a joined-up Rathcoole, Saggart and Citywest so that the corridors between them can be planned in a coherent way, unlike the fragmented housing conurbations we see around these historic villages.
However, there is no guarantee that all of these tie-ins will be provided. There is reference to accelerating infrastructure delivery and the Bill streamlines the process and implements recommendations of the accelerating infrastructure task force. We have had references to the size of apartments and how the Bill allows existing apartment permissions to be updated without restarting the entire planning process. If we are putting people into boxes, and I call some of these apartments "boxes", we have to have something on the outside. What has happened is we have taken away parking spaces. We have provided insufficient playing pitches, gathering spaces, community halls and leisure facilities. There is no tie-in with public transport.
I have said before that we are potentially creating what will be ghettoes in ten years' time. I say that having spoken to developers who are creating very high-quality housing in terms of the BER rating and the framework they were given. However, the framework is not sufficient, whether it relates to people being able to charge their EVs on their domestic tariff or having parking spaces because sometimes people need to be able to get from A to B in a car even if we are trying to encourage a modal shift by making it more difficult for those short journeys when people should be walking or cycling. In areas like Seven Mills, parts of Adamstown, Citywest and Kilcarbery, we do not have that infrastructure. When this legislation is passed, there will be no guarantees. We need to see a firm commitment to providing that; otherwise, we will be creating bad planning.
---
Ireland's EU Presidency: Statements - Wednesday 1st July, 2026
Mar a déarfá, tús maith leath na hoibre. Even if it is only the start rather than half the work done, today's launch of the Presidency of the EU Council in Dublin Castle was, if Members can pardon the pun, a real "Ode to Joy" - from the band of the Defence Forces and the National Youth Choir who heralded the hanging of the Irish, EU and then the Ukrainian flags, to all the other performers, it was indeed a hugely positive occasion from an artistic and cultural perspective. "Samhradh Samhradh" was performed by a collection of musicians, including Laoise Kelly on the harp, Cormac Begley and Christina Polycarpou on the lyra, which segued nicely from the Cypriot Presidency. As someone who likes to sing and has written songs, I was blown away by the depth and variety of all the talent on display - from The Gloaming to the sean-nós, Iarla Ó Lionáird and the ensemble, Francesco Turrisi and Séamus Ong. Cormac Begley performing "O'Neill's March" with Stephanie Keane doing the sean-nós style dancing was absolutely amazing. Ruth Negga did a great reading of Seamus Heaney's "Beacons at Bealtaine". Tolü Makay did a fantastic rendition of The Cranberries' "Dreams". I noticed that a lot of the diplomatic corps from other EU member states were swaying to it. They knew the song and it really got them going. All in all, it was a great start and as Deputy Barry Ward just said, Carrie Crowley did a fantastic and very dignified job as master of ceremonies.
Then we had the politicians. In fairness, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were very strong in outlining our vision both in terms of Ireland's role within the EU and also the direction of the EU, as were all the Ministers. Everyone batted very well for the team. It was good to see the European Council President, António Costa, make reference to Palestine, Lebanon, the Strait of Hormuz and the war in Ukraine. It was great - I also thought it was touching - that the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was able to visit these shores so soon after his official State visit when he addressed Dáil Éireann. This again afforded him the opportunity to call on the EU to keep its promises. That is what I took out of his contribution. He pointed to Ukraine's future as part of the European Union and sounded further warnings about continued Russian aggression and how Putin is not going to stop unless strength and unity are shown. That is the theme of the Irish Presidency - ní neart go cur le chéile.
I will reference the themes which have been referenced already: competitiveness in terms of strengthening Europe's economy, boosting innovation and productivity in the Single Market and supporting prosperity and jobs across the EU; values in terms of upholding democracy, human rights and the rule of law and defending these values not just in the European context but also globally; maintaining the foundational principles of the EU going back before we joined the European Economic Community in 1973; and security in terms of protecting EU citizens, strengthening stability and addressing the geopolitical challenges such as the aforementioned war in Ukraine and other global conflicts, and in terms of building resilience and defence capacity, which President Costa mentioned as well.
On a related note, I mentioned at the EU affairs committee of which I am a member the need to really get involved with our young people and young people across Europe and to engage with them. It is great to see that this will form a good part of the local engagement and interaction process over the coming six months.
That is all well and good - tús maith, mar a dúirt mé - but Ireland is only going to be judged on tangible achievements. It can be a steady-as-she-goes Presidency where we just keep it ticking over until the next country takes over, or we can try to get some tangible achievements. Obviously any country has to be realistic, especially a small country like us on the periphery, in terms of what we can do in six months given the real need for continuity, but it would be nice to see little bit of progress.
On competitiveness, we have to focus on practical outcomes. That means focusing on cutting the barriers for SMEs, reducing energy costs and supporting innovation. It is about getting the balance right between regulation and enterprise. In terms of AI and social media companies, while the EU is quite strong in some ways, I notice a little bit of a dilution.
I also notice a dilution on the measures to tackle climate change. Maybe there will be a redoubling during this Presidency. I hope there will be because we still have the naysayers saying that this is just a repeat of the summer of 1976. Our continental cousins are being absolutely devastated by the record global temperatures. We need to have energy self-sufficiency, which will have to be renewable, but also interchangeable across the grid between the French nuclear, the Irish wind and wave, and the solar, especially coming from the Mediterranean states. We have to show real leadership on this, and not just kind of keep things ticking over.
On the values side, Ireland has to prioritise concrete action. We can talk about supporting the rule-of-law mechanisms, humanitarian leadership and maintaining a clear and principled stance in Ukraine, Gaza and other global conflicts like Sudan but what President Costa said today is only lip service when other EU member states refuse to stand up to the Israeli genocide because of their historic guilt or their geographic proximity. We are only talking the talk unless we use our leadership over the next while to put more pressure on Germany, Denmark and the likes of Cyprus to get tougher with Israel. We can still be friends, but we have to draw the line at some stage, just like we have in many ways drawn the line and risked the ire of the Trump Administration with our fairly modest occupied territories Bill. It would be great to see the occupied territories Bill passed during this term, and also for the Government to try to stretch it out to services. Let the legal eagles come in and show why it cannot be done, but let us push the boat rather than saying we are not even going to try it. We have to show true leadership in this context and maybe put a few noses out of joint among our partners because that is what you do when you are showing leadership - you tell it as it is. We are no longer trying to play the national card for the next six months; we are trying to play the European and the global card.
On security, we again have a constructive role to play in strengthening EU co-operation on all sorts of security - energy security, which relates to the conflict in Ukraine; and cybersecurity, because again there are many malicious elements out there trying to attack European member states, be it from Russia, troll farms or other as yet unmentioned terrorist organisations or countries. We can lead without compromising on our long-standing policy of military neutrality. I take it from the Government's statement that we will not, but I just want to say anyway that we must not hinder the closer defensive co-operation of those other states which want to get involved. We know all too well, especially those in eastern Europe, Poland and the Baltic states, the dangers of being unprepared.
On the wider delivery front, the Government has to focus on getting agreement across the line. Rather than just talking, let us see what agreements will be passed during these six months and what EU legislation will be further advanced and ready to sign off. It should not be a holding Presidency or just a thematic Presidency; it should be a tangible and transformative Presidency. I know this is a big ask in six months but we only get it every now and again and we have to use this time. I urge the Minister of State to be as firm, blunt and forceful as possible and, as I have said, put a few noses out of joint if needs be and we can repair the collateral damage afterwards.
Comments