Christopher O'Sullivan
Cork South-West · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“The aim of the hierarchy of the plan-making, as set out in the Act of 2024, is to improve scope for the various tiers of the planning system to more closely relate to one another, therefore providing greater clarity and consistency for all involved, from individual citizens and residents' groups to landowners and developers and ultimately…”
“My understanding is that a ten-year modernisation programme has already been undertaken by the Courts Service and significant progress has been made in improving the availability and use of court data.”
“Under the Act of 2024, the national planning framework continues to spearhead and explicate the planning agenda and sits at the pinnacle of the plan-led system and structure, whereby all tiers of planning from regional to local align with strategic objectives set out in the national planning framework.”
“The Senator has suggested that such plans would identify strategic development priorities, including settlement hierarchy, infrastructure corridors, climate adaptation measures and areas for regeneration; set out indicative phasing for major infrastructure and public investment; include spatial mapping of long-term development objectives;…”
“The Bill also facilitates the completion of the work of the Valuation Tribunal and the facility for the local authority to issue the levy demand and, where necessary, for An Coimisiún Pleanála to deal with any appeals to the demand that may arise in those existing cases currently with the tribunal.”
“As the system of plan-making in the State has just been revised and is being implemented for the first time, the introduction of another layer of plan-making could undermine the new hierarchy that was carefully arranged and agreed following extensive engagement with a range of stakeholders, including the Office of the Attorney General, an…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,346 lines we hold for Christopher O'Sullivan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 27.
“The Senator is using this opportunity to make a few points about the Office of the Planning Regulator. The new housing plan and the accelerating infrastructure plan both include actions to review the functions of the OPR, so from that point of view, the Deputy's comments are timely. This is ongoing at the moment and will be finalised very shortly. The Senator's comments will be taken on board.”
“Despite the fact the amendment was ruled out of order, that is probably the longest answer I have given yet. The Senator will understand the reasons we could not have accepted it if it had been ruled in order.”
“As the system of plan-making in the State has just been revised and is being implemented for the first time, the introduction of another layer of plan-making could undermine the new hierarchy that was carefully arranged and agreed following extensive engagement with a range of stakeholders, including the Office of the Attorney General, and passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas in 2024. The regional assemblies and planning authorities are actively working on the move to plan-making under the Act of 2024. I do not think there is a need for another layer of plan-making at this time, nor is it an appropriate use of planning resources given the matters sought to be addressed should be dealt with appropriately through the NPF, the RSES, and the development plan process legislated for in the Act of 2024.”
“This will provide more up-to-date and strategic planning, providing greater certainty that there is sufficient zoned land available at all times to align with the needs of housing and economic development, providing greater certainly over a longer period for all stakeholders. The ten-year cycle with five-year reviews will mean that every elected member will be involved, at a minimum, in either the making of the county and city development plan or its review and possible amendment via the interim review. Local area plans have been replaced by specific types of area-based plans to better enable local authority objectives to be priorities, rather than simply being mandatory in nature and drawing resources where not always needed.”
“The aim of the hierarchy of the plan-making, as set out in the Act of 2024, is to improve scope for the various tiers of the planning system to more closely relate to one another, therefore providing greater clarity and consistency for all involved, from individual citizens and residents' groups to landowners and developers and ultimately, where necessary, the courts, which have become the final arbiter of many planning decisions on large-scale development proposals in recent years. Under the Act of 2024, development plans will have a ten-year lifespan rather than the current six-year lifespan and will be more strategic in nature than under the Act of 2000. An interim review of the development plan will occur at year five in order to make account of wider changes since the plan was prepared and to allow for update if required.”
“To provide consistency and to ensure revisions are made where they are required, there is a new process in the Act of 2024 to expedite reviews of county and city development plans after changes are made to the national planning framework or when new national planning statements are issued. This expedited review process will ensure that development plans remain updated and continue to be in alignment with national policy.”
“Under the Act of 2024, the national planning framework continues to spearhead and explicate the planning agenda and sits at the pinnacle of the plan-led system and structure, whereby all tiers of planning from regional to local align with strategic objectives set out in the national planning framework. Put simply, lower order plans are required to align with higher order plans. County and city development plans, including corresponding area-based plans, are aligned to the regional strategies which, in turn, are aligned to the national planning framework. National planning statements allow the planning system to remain responsive to changes, providing agility where required and allowing Government policy to inform project and programme delivery throughout the life cycle of the national planning framework.”
“If it had been ruled in order, I would not have been in a position to accept the amendment. One of the key aims of the Act of 2024 was a greater alignment of all tiers of planning, following a comprehensive review of plans and plan-making in the State. The national planning framework is the Government's high-level strategic plan for shaping the future growth and development of our country. The national planning framework deals with the strategic development of the State in conjunction with the national development plan. This is further supplemented by regional, spatial and economic strategies, and ultimately by county and city development plans, which will be ten-year plans going forward.”
“The Senator has suggested that such plans would identify strategic development priorities, including settlement hierarchy, infrastructure corridors, climate adaptation measures and areas for regeneration; set out indicative phasing for major infrastructure and public investment; include spatial mapping of long-term development objectives; align with the national planning framework, regional, spatial and economic strategies and national planning statements; and incorporate long-term environmental transport, housing and economic projections. The proposed amendment also provides that such plans would serve as a non-statutory strategic framework guiding the preparation and review of county and city development plans, urban area plans and priority area plans, and that they should be reviewed every ten years.”
“Amendment No. 4 seeks to insert a new section into the Act of 2024 to provide for the preparation of long-term strategic master plans. It seeks to provide that each planning authority shall prepare a strategic master plan setting out a long-term vision for the physical, social, economic and environmental development of its functional area over a period of 30 years.”
“I consider a statutory requirement to produce such a report every six months to be excessive and I fail to see the real merit in such an obligation, especially considering that the provision in question, namely, the proposed section 138A, is explicitly time bound and will cease to have effect after a period of two years. I see no reason section 138A cannot be reviewed by my Department on an administrative basis and, if required, the effectiveness can be accessed once its operation has concluded. That speaks to the Senator's point. There will be a monitoring. The proposed amendment is not appropriate.”
“While I cannot accept the amendment, that would be the approach that would be taken in this regard. Amendment No. 3 seeks to provide that the "Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas every 6 months from the commencement of this Act detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the Principal Act related to alterations of existing planning permissions and detailing the location, nature and volume of such alterations by project and local authority area and the resulting commencement of developments that have secured the alterations". As I said, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.”
“I thank Senator Higgins. I understand that with a lot of legislation there will be a requirement for monitoring or to report within 12 months, as has been suggested, but that is where the Minister in question has a statutory function. It is very straightforward in this case: the Minister has no statutory function in relation to reporting or monitoring when it comes to judicial reviews. It would very much be a matter for the Courts Service in this area and that is why we cannot accept this amendment.”
“Judicial reviews against the State, in which my Department may be included as a party, are co-ordinated by the Chief State Solicitor's office under the guidance of the Attorney General's office. An Coimisiún Pleanála, which can be challenged by judicial review on a range of its functions, including decisions on appeals and planning applications in respect of strategic infrastructure developments, already publishes details in respect of legal cases it is involved in as part of its annual report. For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.”
“My understanding is that a ten-year modernisation programme has already been undertaken by the Courts Service and significant progress has been made in improving the availability and use of court data. Accordingly, I do not believe it would be appropriate to provide a reporting requirement in relation to planning judicial reviews in the planning Act, such as that proposed by way of this amendment. The amendment as proposed is not considered to be workable because it would place a statutory requirement on the Minister to report on matters that are subjective in nature. A wide range of factors could give rise to an increase or decrease in the number of planning judicial reviews, and it may not always be possible to determine the exact reason for changes in such levels or for changes in the average duration of proceedings.”
“First, on a technical matter, the judicial review planning procedures are set out in Part 9 of the 2024 Act, while the amendment makes reference to Part 4 of that Act. I presume this is a referencing error in the proposed amendment but the Senator might let me know if I am misunderstanding her intention in any way in that regard. Second, the monitoring, analysis and reporting of data relating to judicial reviews, including associated timelines and durations of proceedings within the courts, is a matter that falls outside the remit of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The management of the courts is the responsibility of the Courts Service, which is independent in the performance of its functions and is under the aegis of the Minister for justice.”
“I thank Senator Collins for tabling amendment No. 2. The effort taken to table it justifies an explanation as to why, unfortunately, I cannot accept it. The amendment seeks to provide, by inserting a new section in the Bill, that the Minister shall lay before the Oireachtas within 12 months a report "detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the Principal Act related to Judicial Reviews and detailing whether the procedural changes have resulted in a speeding up of planning related Judicial Reviews or increased the volume of planning litigation resulting in increased delays for residential and infrastructural development". I will outline why I cannot accept the amendment.”
“We all have the same intention and the same end goal here, which is to tackle dereliction and bring units back into use, especially as housing in which people can live. We all share that key goal. I will try to give clarity on the Senator's exact questions. Section 3 of the Bill will work in combination with the Interpretation Act 2025, which already provides for what we are talking about here, which is the collection of the levy. It is important to clarify that nothing in the Bill changes the liability for the vacant site levy. I have very little to say other than that. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment.”
“Section 27(1) and (2) of the Interpretation Act 2005 ensures that where an Act is repealed, the repeal does not affect anything duly done under the repealed enactment or affect any liability incurred under the enactment. In the case of vacant site levy demands which have been issued, the local authority may continue to collect those levies and, if they are not paid within two months of the issue, recover the debt as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. As noted, the amendment set out by the Senator is, therefore, not considered necessary, as outstanding levies can continue to be collected under the aforementioned section of the 2005 Act.”
“The Bill also facilitates the completion of the work of the Valuation Tribunal and the facility for the local authority to issue the levy demand and, where necessary, for An Coimisiún Pleanála to deal with any appeals to the demand that may arise in those existing cases currently with the tribunal. The amendment proposed by Senator Higgins seeks to insert a new subsection into section 3 to provide for the ongoing collection of the levy. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept this amendment as it is unnecessary. Notwithstanding the repeal provision as set out in section 3, demands for payment of levies which have been issued but have not been collected before the date of coming into operation of the repeal of section 15 will continue to apply and can be collected by the relevant local authority.”
“I thank the Senators who have spoken and Senator Alice-Mary Higgins for proposing the amendment. I hope I can provide some of the clarity Senators are seeking in my response. Amendment No. 1 seeks to amend section 3 of the Bill, which provides for the repeal of the vacant site levy provisions in the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015, as they have been superseded by the residential zoned land tax. Section 3 allows the Act of 2015 to continue to apply to ongoing appeals in relation to the market value attached to a site on the register of the levy.”
“Deputy Ó Broin and I can both see the difficulty in that. There is an opportunity there when those guidelines are being updated. We are currently in the process of updating those guidelines. Perhaps that is something that can be------”
“To transfer social housing waiting lists between local authorities, the protocol will form part of the updated guidance currently being prepared by the Department. It has been positively received by organisations that work directly with and advocate for victims and survivors. The guidelines are from 2017. This is what has informed and guided local authorities with regard to situations where those who are fleeing domestic violence can be accommodated in other local authorities. Through the protocol, as the Deputy pointed out, if you are on the housing list that transfer is now possible. We are saying that we are going to update these guidelines. Perhaps that is the key opportunity to look at the situation outlined by Deputy O'Reilly where someone is a HAP tenant. Under the legislation someone who is a HAP tenant is considered housed.”
“For many years local authorities have supported victims and survivors of domestic violence under the Department's policy and procedural guidance for housing authorities in relation to assisting victims of domestic violence with emergency and long-term accommodation needs. This was first published in 2017. Through these arrangements local authorities can prioritise cases through allocation schemes and assist with access to HAP and RAS supports to work with existing social housing tenants where tenancy issues arise. More recently the Department has worked closely with local authorities, particularly through the CCMA housing committee with a range of stakeholders to develop the new protocol for victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.”
“That period would allow for detailed engagement with local authorities, other key stakeholders and relevant Departments to further examine the administrative, legal and financial implications and to allow a more comprehensive assessment of how mobility objectives might best be achieved without creating unintended consequences elsewhere in the system. This approach reflects a commitment to careful policymaking and to ensure that any future reforms are evidence based, practical and fair for all social housing applicants and tenants. Important flexibility already exists within the current framework. Local authorities have long provided significant mobility supports under existing legislation, as well as guidance, particularly to victims of domestic violence.”
“I say again I think the proposals broadly make sense. As the Bill stands there remain significant unanswered questions concerning fairness between applicants, consistency between local authority systems, implementation, capacity, costs, governance arrangements and the feasibility of cross-jurisdictional operation. The all-Ireland approach raises further legal and practical difficulties as social housing support in Ireland and Northern Ireland operates under separate legislative, administrative and allocation frameworks. These are not peripheral issues. They are central issues. The Government believes that legislating before those matters have been fully examined would be premature. For that reason, we are proposing a timed amendment for a period of 12 months to allow further consideration of this Bill.”
“Within the Department, we will use those interim 12 months wisely to research and assess the different issues I raised, such as the IT, the administration, the variation in approach and the pros and cons, for want of a better term. I gave the example in County Cork where, when the approach was changed in allocating houses in my home town of Clonakilty to people on a waiting list in Youghal on the other side of the country it was initially received with a bit of resistance but that is now the standardised approach. If we were to do this on a national level despite the terrible circumstances people will be fleeing, such as domestic abuse, I am sure the majority of people would fully understand those circumstances and the other circumstances we mentioned like education, work and health, etc. It just all needs to be assessed.”
“I thank all the Members who contributed. I reiterate - and it is not disingenuous to say - that I genuinely hear what they are saying. The proposal makes sense. I hope as well, however, that they will understand that, yes, we were able to do a focused protocol on people fleeing gender-based violence and domestic abuse. I might come back to some of the issues Deputy O'Reilly raised specifically. The broad national approach to this does require further consideration. I do not necessarily think it can be done on Committee Stage. Deputy Ó Broin asked me to use influence. I know where the Minister, Deputy Browne, stands on this and he does see value in what is proposed.”
“The timed amendment indicates that we are not necessarily disagreeing, but the Deputy might also accept in the circumstances I outlined in my speech that there are complexities, not just the IT and administrative complexities, but the fact that within different local authorities there are variations that may be difficult to overcome. All of that evidence, the benefits, the cost and the resources that will be put into it have to be examined. In my time as Minister of State, timed amendments are not all that frequent. Let us face it, the Government either proposes amendments or opposes most of the legislation coming from the Opposition. A timed amendment is an indication that we are certainly willing to work with all parties to try to find a solution to some of the genuine issues outlined by the Deputy in his opening remarks.”
“We want a system that is fair, efficient, recognises exceptional circumstances and that continues to prioritise those households with the greatest need. That is why we are seeking time to carefully consider this matter in detail to determine how any broader mobility framework would interact with existing arrangements and to ensure reforms are sufficiently developed, fair and workable. Deputy Ó Broin made some good points in his opening remarks which are hard to dispute in terms of why there should be some type of passport or mobility between local authorities. He set them out very well. In the example where someone is fleeing gender-based or domestic violence, we have proven that we can do it and show that degree of flexibility.”
“In circumstances where a person may have spent years waiting for social housing support, the prospect of losing all accumulated waiting time could understandably act as a deterrent to relocation, even where personal safety demanded it. This is a focused response, addressing a clearly identified need, allowing support to be provided where personal safety and protection are at stake. This approach reflects our view that mobility is required and reforms should respond to genuine need while protecting fairness within the wider social housing system. This demonstrates that where specific barriers have been identified, policy responses can be developed in a measured and evidenced manner. The Government remains committed to improving how social housing supports are delivered.”
“All Members will be aware that the Government has developed a specific protocol to enable victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence to transfer social housing waiting list time between local authorities. This protocol was developed following detailed engagement between the Department, local authorities and relevant stakeholders. It gives effect to a commitment contained in Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025-2030, which recognises that fleeing domestic violence continues to be a significant factor in presentations to homeless services, and committed to removing barriers faced by victims and survivors.”
“Under existing legislation and guidance, local authorities have long provided significant mobility supports, especially to victims or survivors of domestic violence. Households may move and relocate between housing authority areas under the housing assistance payment scheme, where the household income is within the relevant income limits. Local authorities will also prioritise allocation to those households they consider to be most in need at any moment in time. Local authorities may also provide for exceptional or emergency cases to qualified households, allowing immediate housing outside of normal waiting list priorities should circumstances require, including in cases of domestic violence. The Government also fully recognises that there are situations where mobility is not simply desirable but necessary.”
“For all of these reasons, the Government is not opposing the Bill but seeking time to consider these important matters in detail. While these matters are being considered, it is important to remember that there are already measures within the current framework that facilitate housing mobility in certain circumstances. The four Dublin local authorities have arrangements within their county, allowing social housing applicants to apply for housing in up to two of the other Dublin authorities simultaneously. Similarly, arrangements apply in the two Cork local authorities and the two Galway local authorities. Crucially, the Government recognises the need for mobility, particularly in exceptional circumstances.”
“The Bill also proposes an all-island dimension. While we fully support practical co-operation across this island, where appropriate, we must be realistic about challenges involved. Social housing systems in Ireland and Northern Ireland operate under separate legislative frameworks, separate administrative arrangements and separate allocation systems. The Bill assumes a degree of automatic recognition between those systems that simply does not exist. No detailed policy development or feasibility assessment has demonstrated how much an arrangement could operate. Given the complexities already identified within our own system, the prospect of creating a cross-jurisdictional social housing passport would present even greater challenges.”
“Most importantly, implementing such a system would require significant investment and specialist development, with robust governance ensuring compliance with data protection obligations, substantial lead-in time and ongoing support and maintenance. At a time when the Government and local authorities are focused on accelerating housing delivery, reducing homelessness and supporting increased social housing supply, we must be satisfied that any new programme represents an effective use of finite resources. Before imposing new statutory obligations on local authorities, it would be prudent to undertake a detailed assessment of implementation requirements and timelines. Further analysis is also needed to establish whether expected benefits of the proposed scheme are proportionate to the likely costs involved.”
“At present, no shared national ICT infrastructure exists that would facilitate the type of real-time transfer of social housing applications or social housing support and associated records between all authorities envisaged by the Bill. This is not a minor administrative adjustment. This goes to the heart of whether the proposed scheme could operate effectively in practice. The scale of the technological challenge is particularly significant. A national information technology platform capable of facilitating the type of real-time transfer system envisaged by the Bill would need to securely share sensitive applicant information between all local authorities.”
“In practice, this means that waiting list positions are not standardised. The Bill as written would require local authorities to compare applications which have been assessed under different rules, entered onto the lists at different times and prioritised according to different criteria. Before establishing the national transfer mechanism, further work is required to determine how applications assessed under different systems could be compared fairly and consistently. Without such examination, there is a risk of unintended consequences for both applicants and local authorities. There are significant operational and administrative issues that require further scrutiny.”
“Others use more complex prioritisation approaches. Transfer arrangements also vary. In that context, waiting list positions are not directly comparable. A person who is high on one list is not necessarily comparable to someone on another list because the underlying rules, priorities and housing pressures may be entirely different. The Bill as it stands would therefore require local authorities to recognise and effectively backdate applications that were assessed under different systems and according to different local priorities. Some local authorities place considerable emphasis on waiting time when prioritising allocations. Others utilise broader systems which take into account multiple factors. Some authorities face acute supply constraints in particular housing categories, while others experience very different patterns of demand.”
“The Bill assumes that these previous waiting periods can be treated as directly equivalent. Housing allocation must always involve consideration of the wider community of applicants. Every decision affects not only the person receiving assistance, but also every other person awaiting assistance. This is why the Government believes that the issue warrants detailed analysis before any permanent legislative framework is established. There are substantial differences between local authorities that have not been fully addressed in the Bill. The Bill as it stands assumes a degree of standardisation which does not currently exist. Income eligibility thresholds vary between local authorities. Allocation systems also vary between local authorities. Some local authorities place particular emphasis on waiting time.”
“While this may benefit the household seeking to move, it could also affect households which have been waiting for housing support within the receiving authority for many years. A key question that requires further examination is how any transfer system could balance mobility of one household with fairness for other applicants already waiting in that area. Further, to allow a household in receipt of social housing support to transfer to another local authority, as outlined in the Bill, requires further consideration. One household may have spent many years on a waiting list prior to allocation in an area experiencing extreme housing pressure and limited supply. Another household may have spent a shorter period waiting in an area where housing demand is lower and allocations occur more frequently.”
“The Bill proposes a system through which applicants could effectively transfer waiting list time, list position or housing support between authorities. Any proposal which seeks to do this must therefore grapple with the reality that these lists are not interchangeable. They are not created under identical conditions. They do not reflect identical housing markets. They are not responding to identical levels of demand. That distinction is critically important. Therefore, before legislating in this area, a number of important questions require further consideration. First, there are significant issues of fairness and equity. Under the proposals as drafted, a household could potentially relocate from one local authority area to another while retaining waiting time accrued elsewhere.”
“Availability of housing, demand for support, demographic trends, employment patterns and local housing markets vary considerably throughout the State. For that reason, while social housing assessments are governed by national regulations, local authorities retain responsibility for adopting allocation schemes and reflect the realities of their own areas. This is not an accident of policy. It is a deliberate feature of the system. It ensures that elected members, through the adoption of allocation schemes, can respond to the particular circumstances facing their own communities while operating within nationally prescribed rules. As a result, local authority allocation schemes have evolved to reflect those differing circumstances while operating within a national framework.”
“Accordingly, we are proposing that a timed amendment of 12 months is appropriate in order to further consider the Bill and allow these important matters to be fully assessed. This is not an attempt to dismiss the underlying objective. Rather, it reflects the fact that the issues involved are complex and require careful consideration to ensure that any changes introduced are fair, evidence-based and capable of successful implementation. Social housing is fundamentally based on an assessment of need and an allocation of scarce resources. Every local authority is required to operate within a consistent statutory framework, but it must do so in the context of local circumstances. Housing demand in Dublin differs significantly from that in Donegal. The pressures experienced in Cork city are different from those faced in Longford and Leitrim.”
“They then found that because their income had pushed up above the threshold, they were taken off the social housing list. Then, a year later, their income may have fallen below the threshold, and they would be back at square one. The point of the timed amendment is that we look at these many inconsistencies in detail. There is a lot of validity and sense in what the Deputy is saying, and I do not think there is any issue with saying that. That said, I have moved the amendment, and I welcome the opportunity to speak further on the Bill. Having carefully considered the proposal contained in it, the Government's view is that significant policy, operational, legal and administrative issues remain unresolved. For that reason, we believe the Bill requires further examination and development before proceeding.”
“Someone in my hometown of Clonakilty could be on the housing list for a number of years and then, for example, someone from Mallow or Youghal, a completely different area of the county, might come in and there would be a backlash to that. It made sense, however, because at the end of the day, that person in Youghal was desperately in need of social housing too and was assessed in that regard. Time is needed to make sure this is standardised. The other thing is something I am sure the Deputy will have dealt with in his time as a public representative. When I was a councillor, something that came up a lot was that when people were doing their income returns they were assessed and told that if there was a change in their circumstances, they had to inform the council.”
“I will come back to the horrible situation, as the Deputy outlined about a constituent, where someone is fleeing domestic violence and in constant fear, but there are other reasons, including educational, health, family, and personal reasons. There are so many reasons. The Deputy is right that there would be broad consensus that doing something in this area would make sense. We will, however, move the timed amendment. We need balance. We represent different constituencies and different local authorities. I remember the approach to social housing allocations in Cork being amended. Cork moved away from a localised allocation and broadened it to the entire county. That change was met with a lot of resistance, and we can understand why.”
“I move: To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: "Dáil Éireann resolves that the Social Housing Passport Bill 2026 be deemed to be read a second time this day twelve months, to allow for further consideration of the proposals in the Bill.". Before I go into the detail of the amendment and the rationale of the crafted speech, explaining why we are moving the amendment, speaking frankly, of course there is a lot of sense in the Deputy's proposal. In his opening statement, he outlined probably only two circumstances where it makes sense that there is flexibility and mobility between local authorities. Absolutely.”
“Our fuel and the cost of electricity, the cost of energy, is directly linked and tied to the cost of a barrel of crude oil. We have to step away from that. We have to ramp up solar and wind generation. However, we can only do that if people get behind it. The Deputies who are contributing and criticising the Government for energy prices are the same Deputies who will object to renewables and to solar and object to alternative forms of energy. It is a fact.”
“It is important to note that the Department of Social Protection can also provide support through the additional needs payment to help households to meet expenses, including those who face difficulty with fuel bills. The Government has introduced substantial support during this volatile period. Supports are timely and necessary and we will continue to monitor the situation closely. In the remaining minute I will add, because very little was alluded to on this in the initial contributions from the Opposition, that the key most fundamental way we can reduce energy prices for the people of Ireland is by ramping up renewable energy. It is as simple as this: the higher the proportion of our energy needs or fuel needs that are met by fossil fuels, then the higher our prices will be. It is simple maths.”