Catherine Connolly
Galway West · Ireland
“We must zone in on the smaller businesses because that was the problem; the smaller companies and businesses could never avail of the research and development tax credit. This morning, I had the privilege of listening to the organisation, ALONE. It pointed out that older people living alone are €300 worse off compared to last year.”
“Those patients are human beings and they are being left on trolleys. There are some good things in this budget, which I welcome. I welcome the increase in social welfare, but when it is matched with the increase in the cost of living, it is worth absolutely nothing. I welcome that the money for artists has been extended.”
“Maybe the hint for what has happened with this budget is captured in the words of the Minister, Paschal Donohoe, who said, "Our schools, our hospitals and our public services are responsible for so much good in society." They certainly are, but that is not their function.”
“We have given a reduction in VAT down to 9% for developers with absolutely no evidence that this will help in any way and no context given. Today I attended a presentation in Buswells in relation to derelict properties all done on a voluntary basis.”
“There is 2% less funding at a time when we need balanced rural and regional development more than ever. I welcome the commitment to diversifying our economy. It should have happened years ago. Again, it is lacking in detail.”
“I preface my remarks by using a few seconds to talk about the four people who are outside here on the 18th day of their hunger strike. We have passed a budget in one of the richest economies in the world and we have four people who have been 18 days on hunger strike outside. They have survived the industrial schools.”
The complete record
Every one of 683 lines we hold for Catherine Connolly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“We are going to get the first plan in December. Is the Government on target for that? We have no idea where the monitoring committee is. Has it been set up? Then, we look at the human rights. What does it tell us?”
“In 1993, we had the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities; in 2004, we had the National Disability Strategy; in 2005, we had the Disability Act, which the Government is utterly not complying with; and in 2007, we signed the UNCRPD, and ratified it in 2018. We signed the optional protocol in 2018. In 2012, we had Value for Money and Policy Review of Disability Services in Ireland. We had the National Disability Strategy Implementation Plan 2013-2015; the Comprehensive Employment Strategy for People with Disabilities; National Disability Inclusion Strategy; and so on. The Action Plan for Disability Services is taking us up to 2026. What did the Taoiseach tell us at the national dialogue? The system is not delivering for disabled people, despite all of that. Now, we have a strategy, and the strategy has no plan.”
“I welcome any strategy that has human rights in it. I, therefore, welcome the National Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People. However, if I go to the back of it, I see that there is a fundamental misunderstanding. On the last page, it states that their message is clear: people with disabilities want to be treated the same as everyone else. That is not accurate. They do not want to be treated the same as everyone else because that would not be treating them as people with a disability who need carefully planned services and carefully planned assistance. There is a fundamental misunderstanding there. Then, we go to the background to this. That is the human rights strategy. Let me take the Minister of State back as quickly as I can in my two minutes and 30 seconds.”
“Over seven years ago, the Government made a very good decision to bring in a policy for sustainable fishing in the 6-mile nautical zone. The policy was to prohibit big boats, over 18 m, from fishing in that zone. Unfortunately, that decision was held invalid by the Court of Appeal on a very narrow ground. The Government went back to basics and had a consultation process to bring in another policy. It was announced in July that the Government intended to implement the new policy from 1 October. I cannot see where the policy directive is. I want to welcome the decision that was made to implement the new policy directive from 1 October so that we will stop the unsustainable fishing of sprat. Where is the policy directive? Can the Taoiseach guide me to it and assure me that it will be implemented from 1 October?”
“It was denied that this was the subject of a report to Uisce Éireann. I have rechecked the position. A report was done for Uisce Éireann, and the words used are to the effect that one of the siphons is in imminent danger of collapse. I draw that matter and the lack of infrastructure in Galway to the Tánaiste's attention.”
“I am conscious this is the last day of term. The revised national development plan is going to be published within two weeks. On many occasions, I have drawn the Tánaiste's attention to the lack of infrastructure in Galway and I do so again. This is a major obstacle to development. Galway is one of the cities to be developed in a sustainable way. On the east side of the city, there is no wastewater treatment plant and there are serious problems with the network and infrastructure. For about the tenth time, I mention that one of the two major siphons under the Corrib Estuary which carry all the sewerage and wastewater from the east side of the city out to Mutton Island is in imminent danger of collapse. I raised this matter with the previous Minister of State, Malcolm Noonan, who took a particular interest in it.”
“More people have been shot at the so-called humanitarian aid centres - I make no comparison; it is just that the figures are stark - than were killed when Hamas wrongly crossed the border, which I have condemned. More people have been murdered at aid centres.”
“In Senator Frances Black's occupied territories Bill in 2018, she set out four categories of trade: the import of goods; the import of services; the export of goods; and the export of services. Inexplicably, the Government's Bill has left out three of those categories. This is despite the unequivocal advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel's continued occupation of the occupied territories is unlawful and must be ended as soon as possible. The violation of international law places an obligation on us to do all we can, so I am asking the Taoiseach to give me an explanation as to why the Government is proceeding with just one aspect of Senator Black's 2018 Bill over seven years later in the face of genocide and slaughter.”
“The Secretary General of the UN has told us: What we are witnessing in Gaza is a level of death and destruction that has no parallel in recent times. And it is something that undermines, I would say, undermines the most basic conditions of human dignity for the population of Gaza, independently of the enormous suffering that they are having. We are investing in that genocide.”
“I will use the time the Minister has not used. I accept he has nothing to do with those decisions and that ISIF is an independent body. However, he has an opinion and is a part of a Government that says genocide is taking place. He stood over a situation whereby through either a lack of knowledge or otherwise, he could not tell me how much money was being invested. Suddenly we have the information. When I received the written reply, I was not told the relevant figure for 2024. I am now being told, and welcome the fact, that there has been a divestment. I am asking the Minister straight how he, as a Minister in a Government, can stand over the Government investing in war bonds.”
“At the time we were discussing the Central Bank, he led me to believe, or did not know, that we were directly investing in war bonds. Not alone did we do that but we increased it in 2024. I would like him to be very specific about his involvement in that decision.”
“I am glad ISIF has divested of its investment. I received a written reply to a query, which stated that in 2023, the investment was worth €2.62 million. That was the year Hamas crossed the border and Israel started on this genocide. In 2024, as the genocide continued and worsened, this State invested more money in the bonds. It was not an awful lot more, but there was an increase to €3.62 million. The Minister seemed to be unaware of that when a Sinn Féin motion was debated in the House on how the prospectus works. I specifically mentioned the reply I received that included the figure of €2.62 million. I might have taken up the Minister wrong but I understood from him shaking his head that he did not know or was saying the opposite and that we did not invest.”
“I am following up on an issue I have raised more than once in respect of the State investment through ISIF in Israel war bonds. I ask the Minister to be very specific. I got the figure for 2023 in a written reply. We had to wait for the 2024 figure. What was that figure? What is the figure for 2025? Will the Minister explain why we are investing in war bonds when genocide is taking place?”
“That has been the same throughout, so one has to ask the question how come there has been report after report and still no proactive action from a government, except to set up another commission because the evidence of the thousands of allegations is so overwhelming. What type of society allowed sexual abuse to go on while we decried talk about sexuality as abnormal? That is the environment we were raised in. One did not talk about sexuality, the normal part, while the perverse and perversity continued. While I welcome this commission, I am not full of hope given my experience of commissions of inquiry and given the Grace case and so many reports. I hope I am wrong.”
“We were told the logic, which was that six months did not matter, the babies' brains were just a tabula rasa , let them cry, it did not matter. It was only after six months they suffered and so we then included them in the redress scheme. What I am saying with all this – and I have very little time left to say it – is that the institutions have been forced every step of the way. The religious orders have not come on board at all. Each Government has been forced every step of the way to do something on the backs of courageous victims, in this case, the two Ryan brothers, one of whom is now dead. We saw their courage in coming forward in an RTÉ programme.”
“It distinguished between contaminated evidence, which was that of the survivors, and those whose evidence had great value placed on it, namely, the social workers, the religious orders and so on. Have we learned from that? Have we learned from the redress scheme I attended – I am giving it the wrong name – in Dublin, where, even now, I would still be committing an offence if I dared to tell what award was given to the person I represented? Even more important, that person would still be committing an offence if they disclosed. Then, there is the mother and baby homes redress scheme. I feel the Minister’s former Cabinet colleague, Deputy O’Gorman, was captured by the Department. Babies under six months were left out of that scheme. Imagine leaving out babies under six months. The Minister has been there as a mother.”
“We have terms of reference here setting out how we have failed to protect children and prevent sexual abuse, the concealment of sexual abuse and so on. This is not new. In my time, we had an apology from the Taoiseach in 1999. Ten years later, the Ryan report showed systematic and systemic abuse at every level in the boys’ industrial schools and serious emotional and physical abuse in the girls’ schools. That was in 2009. We then had the Murphy report on the Archdiocese of Dublin and the Ferns report on Wexford, which makes for the most difficult reading. I cannot imagine what it was like for the victims. We had this over and over. In the case of the mother and baby homes report, even though the body of the work is very good, the executive summary is absolutely appalling.”
“In my four minutes, I will make some general comments rather than going into the terms of reference, although I share the difficulties. I would have preferred if the terms had come before the Dáil so we could have looked at them and discussed them. We should have learned from previous debacles, but that has not happened. I welcome the Minister’s work but we are now left with a fait accompli in relation to the terms of reference. We are looking at the period from 1927 to 2013. Incidentally, 2013 was the year the Magdalen report came out and, finally, the State could not get away from the one strong finding that it was fully involved in the oversight of the Magdalen laundries and in using them and providing money. We have had over 100 years of institutionalisation and utterly failing to learn.”
“Fórsa, on behalf of caretakers and secretaries in schools, has served formal notice on 2,000 schools of indefinite strike action at the end of August. They have been forced into this position due to the lack of action from the Government in relation to parity and equality for caretakers and secretaries, as are given to SNAs, teachers and principals. It has long been recognised that schools cannot function without secretaries or caretakers. They are top of the list in terms of keeping schools going. The then Tánaiste, Leo Varadkar, said five years ago: ... the role they play in our education system is as important as that of schoolteachers, SNAs and school principals. For that reason, it is the Government's objective to regularise their employment, terms and conditions, and pension rights. Unfortunately, that has not happened.”
“If I appeal to the male mind and the male model of economy, on that level alone we are losing a fortune as it costs a fortune. While I welcome the Minister's bone fides, to think that 50-something years after Women's Aid was established we are still clapping ourselves on the back that we are now going to build more refuges to take out the innocent people and allow the perpetrator stay, there is something seriously wrong. Part of the problem is we are describing it as domestic and as an epidemic rather than criminality.”
“The task force set out in a very detailed way what should happen, particularly in relation to perpetrators. Fast forward 28 years from then and 51 years from when Women's Aid was set up in 1974 and Erin Pizzey's book Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear was published, which is a seminal work. Here we are 51 years later and the figures have gotten worse. The figure has already been given of 275 women murdered since 1996, the vast majority in their own homes or by somebody who knows them. We stand here again, and I do it in shame, actually. I again mention the cost of domestic violence to the economy. The Library and Research Service has zoned in on this. I will get the exact figure. It is approximately €2 billion per year to the economy alone.”
“Let me first take away the word "domestic" because it minimises crime. Crime is crime. Let me deal with the word "epidemic". It is not an epidemic. An epidemic refers to disease that spreads among the community. This is criminality on every level. Despite all of this legislation I have carefully watched, the numbers are depressingly, shockingly and unacceptably high. In 2024 the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre reported the highest number of disclosures in its 46-year history. Women’s Aid, which is now into its 51st year, disclosed it was contacted 32,144 times, and so on. I will not use up the short time I have with the figures because they are truly shocking, but let me zone in on something. In 1997, the year my second child was born, we had a task force. Eithne FitzGerald was the Minister at the time.”
“I thank the Minister for his detailed speech. Let me recognise the progress made in terms of legislation. We are on our third national strategy. We have an action plan. The Minister is promising three pieces of very important legislation in regard to the removal of guardianship rights for a person who has been convicted of killing, the issue of counselling records which has already been referred to and needs more detail and teasing out, and Jennie's Law. I welcome all of that. I welcome the extra money for Cuan and for refuges. Once again, I will put it in perspective because we have so much legislation - I thank the Library and Research Service for its digest which outlines seven pieces of legislation from 2017 up to 2024 - one would think we should not be here talking about domestic and gender-based violence.”
“I raise the Health Service Executive report from yesterday on the care of some women in Portiuncula hospital. The results are shocking enough that this could be replicated in other hospitals. Equally shocking and perhaps more is that we utterly failed to learn from the Walker report in 2018 and the same mistakes have been repeated. I am particularly aware of the national maternity strategy. We clearly need a debate on the topic. For today, my question relates to the decision to move high-risk pregnancies to Galway hospital, which is under extreme pressure. It does not have the new maternity wing. If it has be done in an emergency, clarity is required on the extra resources that will be put in to facilitate that. The department is already under extreme pressure.”
“We have a declaratory statement: "The EU has always been clear that Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon." This is despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency stated that the agency had not found any proof of an effort to obtain a nuclear weapon on 17 June. Its director said reports that Iran has not been actively pursuing acquiring a nuclear weapon since 2003 are accurate. US intelligence officials have found no evidence of Iran moving towards a nuclear weapon. We are back to weapons of mass destruction. We are back to Israel, a genocidal regime, invading a sovereign state and all we can talk about is mutual conflict between two countries. If we are to call out Russia, which I absolutely do, we need to call out the genocidal state that is Israel. We have to lead.”
“It is simply unconscionable that it has taken this long. It puts into acute focus the need for leadership from this country, as an independent sovereign state and a republic with a particular history of colonisation and famine, and to lead on this matter. It goes to our credibility. For me, the credibility of the EU has been gone for a very long time, although I am a committed European. I put that in, ar eagla na heagla. I asked for a review of the trade agreement in a question I tabled as far back as November 2021 because at that stage, what was going on was simply unacceptable. Again, there has been no action on that whatsoever. Our credibility on Iran is at stake.”
“I have two and a half minutes, so I will try to be as focused as I can. I absolutely agree with the comments on Frau von der Leyen. Europe lost its moral compass a long time ago. Frau von der Leyen is telling us that Israel is entitled to defend itself. It is just beyond. If the MEPs from Ireland vote against the motion of no confidence, we are seriously in trouble in Ireland. On the action from the EU in the context of these discussions, I welcome that we finally have a statement that deplores the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza and the unacceptable level of civilian death. What we have is slaughter. We are still playing with words. I welcome that we got those words, however weak and vague, although it has taken more than 20 or 21 months, but there has been absolutely no action.”
“Low-income households are disproportionately affected because, quite clearly, they use a greater amount of their income on necessities. I think I have gone over time so I will finish.”
“I am sick, sore and tired of talking about the marginalised as if they are inevitable when they are a direct consequence of the economic model we have as is our housing crisis. We have here a very practical motion that asks us to do a number of things to bring transparency and accountability. It proposes changing legislation. What sticks out in the motion is the reference to a letter sent by the Agri-Food Regulator to the Minister stating what it needed. The reply from the Minister of State has utterly ignored that. There are practical steps that can be taken and absolutely nothing has been given in relation to them. The regulator sent a letter saying there was a gap on the ground and it could not function effectively. It wrote months ago and nothing has happened. We can look at the figures.”
“Everybody from Barnardos to Social Justice Ireland to the CSO have given us figures and they can all be quoted here today but it is those on the lowest incomes who are always most affected by the inequality in society, not us standing in our feet here with good salaries and not anybody else on a good salary. It affects those whom the system has disempowered and disabled and who are not allowed to participate because they are struggling on a daily basis to pay for bread, milk or butter; to pay rent that keeps rising; and wondering where their mortgage repayments are going to come from. We continuously go on with the same economic model. I am not here to preach. I am here as a practical woman. I am here as someone who has the privilege of living and working in different backgrounds.”
“This motion is necessary, urgent and overdue and I thank the Social Democrats for bringing it forward. People are carrying the cost of a crisis they have nothing to do with. We can continuously talk about taking measures to deal with rising costs, and the Social Democrats outlined actions relating to it. Change the legislation and take action to bring about the necessary structural changes or we can go on forever every single year talking about the marginalised and refusing to address the question that the economic model has marginalised people and not the other way around.”
“When I visited Bantry, and I was also in Connemara, the point was made that people are now so upset that they want a complete ban, even within the six nautical mile area. That is what they have been driven to. What we need is a sustainable policy as quickly as we can.”
“I cannot accept the situation. The replies to the two questions I asked were exactly the same except for the last sentence. It is not the fault of the Minister of State, but there is absolutely no sense of urgency here. There is no sense that we have now lost seven years and fishing continues unsustainably. I want a breakdown. How many of the 5,500 submissions have been gone through? Are there enough staff to look at them? What is the breakdown in terms of supporting the policy and not supporting the policy? What are the vested interests? If anyone has an interest, that is okay but it needs to be dealt with quickly so we can put a policy in place. Is the Minister of State telling me that come September, I will be looking at the big trawlers in Galway Bay and elsewhere?”
“I have no problem with missing Ministers of State. I understand how busy they are. Personal contact never impresses me although I am delighted when Ministers of State make personal contact. What impresses me more are answers on paper. Where are we with the analysis of the 5,500 consultations? I heard in the Minister of State's answer that "the policy context has changed since 2018" and that the people making submissions were made aware of that. I appreciate that is the case. The policy context has become even more serious in terms of our obligations with respect to climate change and biodiversity, and a sustainable way of living for people in our coastal areas. This ties in with seaweed and the wool industry. As a country, we are utterly failing to encourage small native industries. Here is a golden opportunity.”
“In fact, they said there was not even an obligation to consult, but that once the Government undertakes a consultation process, it must take all care to do so correctly. The Court of Appeal said England and the EU had to be consulted. I am not sure where the problem is. I know it is urgent and the Dáil will be on leave from next week. In September, we will be looking at big trawlers going in unsustainably, taking out the sprat in large quantities in an unsustainable way with quite a lot of it going to feed fish farms. This is a golden opportunity for a win-win for the Government on every level, but particularly for local fishermen. I will stay within my time.”
“On 20 May, I got an answer to a parliamentary question which states "I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that this matter is of the utmost importance" and assurances follow. Fast-forward two calendar months and I get another answer that is verbatim the same. There is not even an additional full stop or comma. Only the last line is different: "It is critical that all of the necessary procedural and legal steps are taken". The consultation process closed last year. It has been more than a year since the consultation process closed. Bear in mind that the High Court and the Court of Appeal found no problem with the Government's policy, none whatsoever, just with a tiny segment of the consultation.”
“The Court of Appeal, interestingly, again held totally with the Government. It absolutely agreed that the Government was entitled to make the policy and that it was in keeping with all its aims and objectives, but on this occasion, it held on a narrow ground, not that the boat owners had not been consulted, but that Britain and the EU had not been consulted or put on notice that there would be this change. On that very narrow ground, it went back to scratch. It went back for consultation. On the first occasion, there were 900 submissions. On this occasion, I understand, there were more than 5,000 submissions. I have been at public meetings on this matter. I have been in Connemara at a public meeting on this matter and all I want is for the policy to be implemented. I ask Minister of State to spare me a little bit.”
“What happened was that - the Minister of State can save me from repeating this if it is in his prepared contribution because it has been brought up many times - it was challenged by a number of boat owners. They were perfectly entitled to do that. It went to the High Court and the High Court found for them on one specific ground, namely, that the consultation was - this is my word - faulty. Nothing else. Indeed, the High Court set out that the Government is entitled to make policy and that the policy it had made was in keeping with Government objectives on sustainability and biodiversity. One tiny part was found not to be right and therefore the policy was held at naught. That was appealed by both sides to the Court of Appeal. I will fast-forward as that took a number of years.”
“I am glad in a sense that the Minister of State is responding to this because he took a hands-on approach to another matter and he might have some influence here. I am standing here seven years after the Government introduced a wonderful policy. None of us had a problem with it. It was a policy to ensure the sustainability of fishing within the six-nautical mile zone by banning trawlers measuring more than 18 m. None of us had a problem with that. It was to be rolled out with a transition phase, which was practical and sensible, to give the bigger trawlers time to adjust to the new regime and move out over a period. Unfortunately, it has never become a reality. The problem is particularly acute given the biodiversity and climate emergency and it is equally important for sustainable jobs on the coast.”
“Some of what he said was okay and I accept it to a point, but no reasons have been given for the failure to activate all the planning permissions not related to JRs. Now the Minister is going to make it easier for developers to sit on land. Rather than resourcing local authorities, the Taoiseach is coming out condemning them. I certainly have been critical of them, particularly in Galway, but they were stopped from building housing back in 2009. When we got our quarterly report, it stated construction was suspended. It remained suspended until 2020 and we are going to blame local authorities for that.”
“It contrasts with having developer-led development all the time. Let me refer to figures on page 16 of the Bill digest. Maybe the Government will come back with different figures. The digest states: More than 50,000 apartments in Dublin [Notice it is not the rest of the country] have planning permission but have not commenced construction. Of the 82,700 homes permitted citywide, over two-thirds remain inactive. Could I have the attention of the Minister and Minister of State for a little while? The digest goes on to state, “While approximately 7,500 units are affected by judicial review, the majority, nearly 50,000, are stalled for other reasons.” There is absolutely no elaboration on those other reasons. I have read all the Minister’s press releases and what he said about JRs.”
“I would love to know how many were taken in Galway county and city and how many planning permissions are sitting there because of JR or simply because developers are sitting on the land and waiting for things to change. We heard an announcement recently that the apartments will be reduced in size. I cannot think of anything more obscene. We have learned nothing if we think it is okay to reduce the size of an apartment. I pay tribute to assistant Professor Orla Hegarty, who, as a public servant, clearly articulated on “Morning Ireland” that the Government proposal would not lead to a reduction in the cost of apartments. She went on to say how costs could be reduced and listed various ways, one of which was to pay builders a monthly salary to build houses. This was one of the many good suggestions she made.”
“Then one has to start within 18 months. Presumably, that is to ensure developers do not sit on undeveloped land for an extended period so it will increase in value. Nobody has asked why permissions have not been acted on up to now. Nowhere in a paper do I see it set out, except in the case of the few subjected to JR. There are thousands but in the scheme of the planning permission numbers overall, which I will come back to, the proportion is lower than 10%, I gather. We hear phrases like “financial obstacles” and “the rising cost of materials” but I really would have liked the obstacles to acting upon planning permissions to have been set out. They are nowhere. I just see references to JRs over and over. The purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny is to set all this out. I do not see a breakdown of the JRs by county.”
“The Government has given absolutely no evidence anywhere of that. I am going to go back to the figures given in the Bill digest on the tiny amount of the planning permissions that sit unactivated. This is certainly not caused by JRs. If the Government is going to air the narrative in every interview and everywhere else, it has a duty to give evidence and facts to show the number of judicial reviews. That I would have no difficulty with. I do have a difficulty with the extension of housing permissions that would otherwise lapse or that have not yet commenced although they are near the end of their durations. They are going to get an extension of up to three years. One must apply within a six-month period of the legislation commencing, which I welcome, although we have no idea when this Bill, when it becomes law, will be commenced.”
“We have transitional measures, which I agree with, to facilitate the variation of development plans and local area plans that were commenced under the Act of 25 years ago so they may continue, even when the relevant sections of that Act have not been commenced in the new Act. I repeat that because it is so Kafkaesque. We need to do this to offer “continuity, legal certainty, and operational flexibility”. That was the purpose of the 2024 Act. The suspension of the running of duration of planning permissions until JRs are complete is a practical suggestion and I do not have a difficulty with it; however, I do have a difficulty with a certain narrative of a man whose name I forget, but who I believe is the chair of the infrastructure committee and whom I mentioned before in the Dáil, that objectors are running down to the courts for JRs.”
“Having said that, and as pointed out, a substantial amount of the major Act of a few months ago has not been commenced, yet there is a need to amend it, among other things, to ensure that updated housing requirements in the revised national planning framework can be quickly incorporated into the planning system and to provide certainty that this may lawfully occur under the 2000 Act, which is 25 years old and which we were supposed to have amended or repealed. We are doing all that because we have not rolled out the Planning and Development Act 2024. I do not have the words to describe this but believe it is a subject for “Callan’s Kicks” or for somebody with a sense of humour and irony that we are now amending an Act that has not been commenced. There is really no explanation given for this.”
“The people I know go to great trouble to make submissions, at a personal cost, including financially, and they do their best. It is always a case of David and Goliath. It has been recognised by the courts that there is a trinity involved always: the community or residents; the developer; and the local authority or planning authority. We must really stop blaming people who take the trouble to make submissions.”
“The 2024 legislation was to amend the 2000 Act to bring clarity and certainty, not just to the legality of what was set out in the latter but also in relation to the market. It has utterly failed to do that and we have not implemented it. There have been two orders to implement two little parts of it. Here we are today, in the second last week of the term, rushing through a Bill that will amend an Act passed only a few months ago after years of discussion. It is a most unacceptable way to do business. It promotes the narrative that the Government is leading with, namely that objectors are the cause of the problem. I say again on the record that any planning system should be robust enough to deal effectively and quickly with concerned residents’ or citizens’ submissions. I do not believe these submissions are objections.”
“I thank the Chair for facilitating me. My apologies. I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. As usual, I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which again has been under pressure to produce a digest for us. The Bill has 17 sections and two Parts. I have both positive and negative things to say about it but I never agree with waiving pre-legislative scrutiny. Doing so is a bad decision. There are issues that should have been teased out through pre-legislative scrutiny. There was no regulatory impact statement and the legislation is being rushed through. As said by Deputy Ward, we are now amending an Act that was discussed for hours and hours. I feel for the staff because the 2024 legislation was practically impossible, involving long hours and late nights.”
“There has been a very welcome announcement that there is going to be a commission of investigation into every allegation of historical sexual abuse in every school in the country. Are we going to have a debate on that in the Dáil? Is it going to be on the agenda next week? We are going to finish next week. We need to learn from previous commissions of investigation, and it should be debated in the Dáil.”