Cian O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay North · Social Democrats · Ireland
“Unification presents distinct challenges that need to be carefully planned for and managed. The analysis done by Professor Doyle shows that the cost of pensions would be unlikely to transfer to a united Ireland straight away. Following Brexit, the UK and Ireland signed a bilateral convention on social security in 2019.”
“Ireland spends less than that defending a much larger territory and has decades of underinvestment to catch up on. We need increased investment, particularly in systems and technologies, including sonar and air surveillance radar.”
“I welcome this important discussion on the topic of Irish unity and its fiscal implications. It deserves analysis and fundamentally respect for the people, who will ultimately decide the future of this island. There are real challenges in any transition to unity but there are also very significant opportunities.”
“These are highly skilled jobs with union representation and apprenticeship programmes. They are of fundamental importance to the local economy and community. They should never have been left exposed in this way.”
“The Tánaiste must surely know that these exports are feeding Putin's war machine. Does he not think it is unusual that Ireland is one of the very few European countries where our exports to Russia have increased since Russia invaded Ukraine? That has been driven by the exports of alumina that have more than doubled.”
“We know from the investigation carried out by The Irish Times and the organised crime and corruption reporting project that alumina from Ireland is ending up in Russian owned smelters in Krasnoyarsk. Krasnoyarsk is Russia's only smelter producing high purity aluminium.”
The complete record
Every one of 897 lines we hold for Cian O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 18.
“I regret that this unprecedented motion is taking place today. We have been led to this impasse by a Government intent on bulldozing democratic norms to get a grubby deal with a corrupt politician over the line. This is the essence of why we are here. Last Tuesday as the Dáil descended into chaos one person sat there smiling and laughing. Michael Lowry was triumphant and why would he not be. He got exactly what he wanted. He got one of his group elected as Ceann Comhairle. He got another four appointed as junior Ministers, including two super juniors. He secured Opposition leader speaking rights. He got influence over how public money in the national development plan and the HSE capital plan will be allocated.”
“The delay in setting up committees is completely on the Government side. We have been waiting months for the Government to bring forward proposals to establish committees. It must bring forward those proposals to the Dáil reform committee for committees to be established. It should have been done months ago. We have been asking for this be done for this to be done. There is no excuse for delays. To be very clear, last week at the Business Committee the Social Democrats asked for time this week to debate tariffs. That was not agreed and it was voted down again on the Order of Business today. This week in the Dáil we should be putting in time on the key issue of tariffs and Ireland's response. This is the first time in the history of the State that the Dáil has debated a confidence motion in the Ceann Comhairle.”
“I agree with the points that have been made. I want to ask the Government about tariffs. I looked for time to be on the Dáil schedule this week to discuss tariffs. It is a huge issue that is going to impact on this country. Will the Chief Whip reconsider and actually put time on the schedule this week so that we can get an update from the Government on tariffs and have questions and answers with the responsible Ministers?”
“The Taoiseach just confirmed that trade with Canada is flourishing without the provisions of the investor court, so we can have strong trade without those provisions. To get back to the key point about supporting workers and sectors impacted by the announcements that will take place tomorrow and thereafter, are there plans at EU level to put in place supports? The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was a successful support. Will it be repurposed? Will the Taoiseach ask and lobby for that to be repurposed? Will he take on board this suggestion? It could be very useful. On a domestic level, what sorts of support will be put in place? When will the Government make decisions on those and when will they be communicated?”
“We have no control over what will be announced tomorrow but we must use every lever we have here and at an EU level to mitigate the damage. What is the Taoiseach's position on tit-for-tat tariffs at an EU level? Will he outline any EU supports that will be made available for impacted sectors? The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was initially set up to help workers who lost out on jobs due to globalisation. Will the Taoiseach advocate for this fund to be repurposed to help workers impacted by these tariffs? What preparation is being done to introduce emergency domestic supports for impacted sectors and how does the Taoiseach intend to communicate these?”
“Pharmaceutical exports to the US could halve. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU will have to respond to this unprovoked aggression, but it is crucial that any response is well-thought-out and measured. It is essential that our voices and national interests are represented in any EU retaliation. As the Taoiseach will know, trade is an EU competency, but there is much that we can do domestically to prepare for this onslaught. In the short term, emergency supports may need to be put in place for impacted sectors. Allied with this, we should be turbocharging investment in critical infrastructure. We need to invest in energy, transport and water infrastructure to reduce costs for businesses and households. We need to invest in affordable housing to support our continued economic development.”
“Tomorrow, Donald Trump will take a wrecking ball to the world economy. His goal is clear and unambiguous, that being, to cause maximum damage. Yesterday, Trump said his tariffs would make his country go boom, which brought to mind the Hindenburg disaster because, as far as plans go, tariffs are up there with filling an airship with flammable gas. Tariffs are toxic to trade and economic growth and America will not be immune from this poison, which is why fears of a recession in the United States are growing. We are through the looking glass when it comes to the Trump Administration. Appeals to reason and logic are doomed to failure. As a small open economy, the threat to us is particularly serious. This is clear from the modelling that has been done. In the worst case scenario, up to 80,000 jobs could be lost or not created.”
“I asked the Minister serious questions about the response on tariffs, which he has not answered. How the EU decides to retaliate to Trump’s tariffs will be critically important to Ireland. We are particularly exposed because we are a small open economy with huge levels of trade with the US. The Minister knows this. We are much more exposed than other countries. If the EU retaliation brings into the trade war industries and sectors important to Ireland and not already targeted by Trump, this will have a detrimental impact. Is the Minister confident the EU will take this sufficiently into account in deciding how to retaliate? This is important for the country. How will the industries most impacted by this trade war be supported?”
“The Minister was crystal clear in the election that he was going to deliver tax cuts. He is now being crystal clear that they are off the table. We called him out on that during the election campaign that it was irresponsible and reckless.”
“It was obvious at that time from Trump’s election that there was huge economic uncertainty. Despite this, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil spent the election promising tax cuts and large spending increases. The Social Democrats warned them this was a reckless approach. The Government has now admitted these tax cuts may never materialise. As a small open economy with huge trade with the US, Ireland is more exposed than most. How the EU decides to retaliate to Trump’s tariffs will have a huge impact on Ireland. The question is: as a small member state, how much input do we have into the EU response? As Eurogroup president, what is the Minister’s insight into this? Will he tell us about any plans for supports for impacted industries? Does he now regret making populist promises during the election which he is already rowing back on?”
“Are we now veering towards the worst-case scenario the Government has modelled? That could mean the loss of up to 80,000 jobs and billions of euro in lost trade. Nobody wants to be alarmist or cause unnecessary worry but we must be prepared for whatever economic threat is coming. We must do whatever we can at home and through our engagement with the EU to cushion the blows. I do not think anything the Taoiseach said or did in Washington DC a few weeks ago could have changed this outcome. Donald Trump is megalomaniac convinced tariffs will turbocharge the American economy. He will not or cannot listen to facts, logic or reason. The Government is in no way responsible for Trump’s behaviour. It is, however, responsible for the reckless promises it made during the election. The country went to the polls just four months ago.”
“Donald Trump has called 2 April "Liberation Day" because it is the day he plans to launch a global economic war. Ireland will inevitably be impacted but the extent had been unclear. However, last night we learned that Donald Trump has pharmaceuticals in his cross hairs. He said, "... we love Ireland, but we're going to have that," referring to our pharma sector. Trump’s toxic love affair with the country could cost us dearly. Given that pharma comprises approximately €100 billion or 45% of our goods exports this is hugely concerning. The pharma industry and the people who work in it are a critically important part of our economy. We know tariffs will have a negative impact on Ireland. However, the ESRI warned that the impact could be much worse if pharmaceutical products are targeted.”
“Does you really think that is credible, that you have gone to all this effort just because you have no deal, apparently, with Michael Lowry and you gave him no commitments?”
“Was there no deal at all? Is that what the Taoiseach is saying? Is he saying he made no deal with Michael Lowry about these speaking rights at any stage, that there were no agreements, that he has done this off his own bat and that this is entirely his own initiative even though from day one Michael Lowry was saying that he was going to get these special speaking rights that Opposition leaders get? From day one he was saying that. How was he able to say that with such confidence if there was no deal with the Taoiseach? How come if there was no deal with the Taoiseach he has gone and fought tooth and nail to deliver on what he was saying he was going to get from day one?”
“I thank the Taoiseach. I would ask him to get this into his head. I have asked him the question: “What is your deal with Michael Lowry?” Is the Taoiseach saying he made no deal with Michael Lowry to support the Government? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying there was no deal?”
“That is a serious infringement of the job we were elected to do and a slap in the face of the people who voted for us. If ever a government needed to be held to account, this one does. It is barely a few months old and its record is already one of failure. The Government is flailing around on housing as the situation deteriorates from disaster to catastrophe. Children with disabilities and their families are being betrayed and abandoned. Pre-election promises, such as enacting the occupied territories Bill, have been kicked to touch. Clearly, it is not only Michael Lowry showing disrespect to the public. Will the Taoiseach come clean and tell us what he promised Michael Lowry in return for his support for this Government?”
“For generations, we have had Governments and Oppositions, each one charged with a distinct duty - one empowered to run the country and the other to hold that power accountable. After yesterday’s debacle, we have a muddying of the waters, an attempt to disguise Government backbenchers as members of the Opposition by bestowing them with the same speaking rights as Opposition leaders. The notion that they will use this time to hold the Government to account is laughable. No one buys it, least of all the Taoiseach. The arrogant dismissal of the public’s concerns is not working. They can see very clearly through the Government’s spin to what is really going on here. What we have is a Government that is drunk on power trying to damage the Opposition’s ability to hold it accountable.”
“Clearly, this is no longer the case and you need to reflect on that position. Yesterday, the mask slipped. The enduring image of the day was Michael Lowry giving the two fingers. A TD, who has been found to be grossly corrupt, laughing it up as the Taoiseach did his bidding sums it all up. The derision and the contempt that is at the heart of this Government was clearly exposed. Michael Lowry was cock-a-hoop, and who can blame him? The Taoiseach had just ripped up more than 100 years of parliamentary procedure for him. The question we all want answered is: why is the Taoiseach jumping through the hoops for Michael Lowry? I have listened to the Taoiseach demean the concerns about this stitch-up.”
“Yesterday, I asked the Taoiseach to name a single parliament in the world where there is a time slot on the schedule where 100% of the time is given to the Government members of that parliament and he did not answer. Today, the Taoiseach came in with a list of parliaments where government MPs can ask oral questions. That has always been the case in Ireland where Government TDs can ask oral questions. They can ask questions under Questions on Policy or Legislation and under Taoiseach’s Questions as well, and the Government is getting rid of half of those. A Cheann Comhairle, the role of Ceann Comhairle in defending the democratic processes in this Dáil and the interests of all Members impartially is very important. It is essential that the Ceann Comhairle enjoys the confidence of both Government and Opposition.”
“He presented the idea that it was contradictory and that we were giving unsavoury countries a veto over our actions. This argument has been behind the efforts of a wing of Fine Gael to erode neutrality over the years. That is what the Taoiseach told the Dáil when in opposition.”
“When the Taoiseach, the leader of the Minister of State's party, was in opposition, he said that attempts to dismantle the triple lock were, "[A]n out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael which ignores the facts of Ireland’s international standing". EU battle groups, which are now the focus of Ireland's overseas deployment, operate without a UN mandate and are not subject to EU parliamentary or judicial oversight. They are unaccountable to the European Court of Justice, ECJ, the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, or the European Parliament. The Minister of State's party leader, the Taoiseach, Deputy Martin, told the Dáil when in opposition that: Earlier this year, the Minister for Defence signalled that he would try to water down Ireland's commitment to the triple lock, which is at the core of our neutrality.”
“The Minister of State is engaging in distraction tactics. I want to agree with the Minister of State's comments thanking our Defence Forces and their families for the contribution they make. I fully agree with the Minister of State on that. Ireland has a proud role in this regard. That is what we are trying to do with our motion, namely protect that. Since the United Nations was founded, Ireland has been committed to the principle that if we send our military abroad it is under a UN mandate. The Government is ripping that up by abolishing the triple lock and taking us in a dangerous direction. The implications of this could be very far-reaching. We need a discussion on that.”
“That comment really is beneath the Minister of State. He knows well we have always been strongly supportive of the European Union. There is no question on that. It is really just a distraction tactic. The heart of this is in the Minister of State's speech, where he keeps talking about reform of the triple lock. This Government is not reforming the triple lock. That is what it said it would do in its manifesto. It is abolishing the triple lock, going from a situation where there are safeguards in place to one where the Cabinet of the day can effectively decide whether to send Irish young people abroad into a war zone. That is what this is about. The Minister of State can talk about reform all he likes. That was the promise given to the electorate. The Government is abolishing the triple lock and has not given good justifications for it.”
“I have to take the Minister of State up on what he has just said, trying to imply somehow that the Social Democrats are not strong supporters of the European Union. We always have been, since our foundation.”
“-----is for government backbenchers to ask government leaders questions with no time allocated to the opposition? That does not exist. Therefore, this is quite extraordinary and it should not be done. Will he tell me one place in the world where this happens?”
“-----with a time slot being created where Government TDs ask the Taoiseach questions without any input from the Opposition? Can the Taoiseach tell me of any parliament in the world where there is a time slot where 100% of it-----”
“Yes, but in more than 100 years of this Dáil, never ever in the weekly schedule has there a time slot created where 100% of the time is allocated to the Government. Does the Taoiseach not see something fundamentally wrong-----”
“The truth is Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael cannot be trusted. After Fianna Fáil bankrupted the country and the troika took over in 2010 we were promised, "Never again". Reforms of Dáil procedure to strengthen Opposition oversight were introduced post crash. It is clear the Government has forgotten about the lessons of the past. Instead of strengthening accountability it wants to weaken it. Stroke politics and dodgy deals with Michael Lowry have taken precedence and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are reverting to type - arrogant complacency. Does the Taoiseach really think people voted for that? He made a pledge that any changes to Standing Orders would be done in agreement with the Opposition. It is clear he has no intention of honouring that.”
“That has always been recognised in Dáil procedures because it is fundamental to how this place operates. It is the job of Government TDs to support the Government and of Opposition TDs to hold the Government to account. Is this accountability what the Government is afraid of and so desperate to avoid? In a way I get it. This Government has already made a disaster in terms of broken election promises. It spectacularly failed to deliver 40,000 homes it promised last year. It promised to prioritise enacting the occupied territories Bill but it has been put on the long finger. Government parties spent the election promising tax cuts and enormous spending increases even though we in the Social Democrats warned this was reckless behaviour and now the finance Minister has admitted those promised tax cuts are highly unlikely to ever materialise.”
“The Taoiseach's efforts to defend the indefensible are not working. Dáil rules are being reverse-engineered to guarantee one outcome, that is, that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will deliver on the deal they have made with Michael Lowry. That is what it all boils down to. The Taoiseach's backbenchers are well aware he would not be going to these extremes for them. The truth is the Government has caused chaos in this Dáil and delayed setting up committees to facilitate Michael Lowry and keep him happy. The public have a right to know what was in the deal with Michael Lowry. The Taoiseach should come clean on that. This is a shameless political stroke that would make even Bertie blush. There are clear lines of separation between Government and Opposition because we have different functions.”
“Parents are being forced into taking legal cases they do not want to take. What is the Tánaiste's advice to parents now and when is the Government going to sort this out?”
“What are parents and families to do now? They are at their wits' end. They are increasingly being told that the only way to get the assessments of need that are needed for their children is to take legal action. The State is not contesting these cases, so the State is effectively putting its hands up and saying it is failing to meet the legal needs of children with additional needs. What is the Tánaiste's advice to parents? Is he telling them that the only thing they can do is to take legal action? Is he advising them to take legal action? What does he say to the parents who are not taking legal action and whose children are being left at the back of the queue? The Government has been talking for quite some time about sorting this out but when will it actually sort this out? This situation is getting worse.”
“Given that 90% of assessments of need are being completed well outside of the legal timeframes, is the Government now effectively saying to families that they need to take legal action to get an assessment of need for their children and vindicate their rights?”
“In the past five years alone, the State has spent more than €8 million on cases taken by parents who are fighting for an assessment of need for their children. That €8 million would pay the salaries of 180 occupational therapists or 130 psychologists. Imagine the positive impact that would have on the lives of the tens of thousands of children currently on waiting lists. Instead, it is being spent on cases that families should not be forced to take. We have been told that, when assessments of need do not adhere to legal timeframes, the litigation strategy of the State is not to contest these cases.”
“Is it any wonder that parents are at breaking point? Every day, they endure stress and heartbreak watching their children denied the services they need to reach their full potential. In some cases, children are regressing because they are not getting any supports. Parents are having to scrimp and save trying to pay privately for therapy because the only thing that one is guaranteed in the public system is a place on the waiting list. This level of endemic dysfunction is reflective of a broken and failed system. More and more parents are being forced into litigation to get an assessment of need for their children. The number of legal actions being taken against the State has skyrocketed.”
“Tens of thousands of children with additional needs are being failed by this Government. Some 14,221 children are overdue an assessment of need. New figures released to me show the scale of the crisis for children trying to access essential therapies. At the end of December, there were more than 41,000 children waiting for an initial assessment for speech, language and occupational therapy. The figures for occupational therapy are particularly stark. Of the more than 22,000 children waiting for their first assessment, nearly half have been waiting for more than a year. Disability services were an issue that the Tánaiste said he would prioritise when he was Taoiseach. The current Taoiseach has said the same thing. Do these shameful figures reflect an issue that has been prioritised by Government?”
“Did he give the Taoiseach that information before the election day? Is the Taoiseach going to answer that question? He has dodged it three times; this is his fourth time. Will he answer that question?”
“The Taoiseach told the electorate a few months ago that the housing target for this year was 41,000 homes. Is he now saying that target is gone? Is he now saying that he has no housing target for 2025? What is the Government's housing target for 2025? The Taoiseach was explicitly clear a few months ago with the electorate that it was 41,000 homes. Is that still his target or has he ditched it? Why is he refusing to answer questions about what the Government's housing target is for 2025? Second, there is that question the Taoiseach has now been asked three times but he has not answered. Did the Minister for Finance give the Taoiseach that information from the Department of Finance that the Government's housing completion projections of 40,000 homes were not going to happen?”
“The Government has not taken up this proposal. Can the Taoiseach level with us now and confirm the Government's housing target for this year is 41,000 homes? Does he accept that it is not going to meet that target, and what radical measures is he going to take to ensure we build the amount of affordable homes needed?”
“Does the Taoiseach think that people will forget the commitments he made just a few months ago? The reality is that the Taoiseach's Government has been found out and his housing plan is not working. Housing is about more than bricks and mortar; it is about independence and security. It is about starting a family and putting roots down in a community. There are now tens of thousands of people throughout Ireland who are missing out on this. They are people who feel disconnected from society and forgotten by government, and who feel that their lives are passing them by. There are solutions to the housing crisis. We have put forward many. For example, we proposed the introduction of affordable housing zoning. The Government voted this proposal down. We proposed early-stage finance to get affordable housing projects off the ground.”
“There is now a mountain of evidence that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael deliberately misrepresented housing delivery figures during the election. The Taoiseach cannot continue to deny it. This is a Comical Ali routine he is playing in pretending it was somehow an honest mistake. Not content with massaging last year's figures, the targets for this year are now being clearly reverse engineered. When the Taoiseach was asked by RTÉ in February about housing targets for this year, he dodged the question. He would not give an answer on housing targets for this year. In advance of the election, he was very clear on housing targets, as was Fine Gael. He said this year's target was 41,000 homes. Are we now to understand that this figure is not worth the paper it is written on?”
“Instead of accepting responsibility for this during these questions, what we have heard from the Taoiseach today is spin, bluster, deflection and accusing the Opposition of engaging in propaganda, when he is the one who told the electorate that 40,000 homes would be delivered last year.”
“The Taoiseach was asked a simple question, which he did not answer. Did the Minister for Finance share with him the analysis from the Department of Finance that the 40,000 homes claim was not going to materialise last year? Did he share that analysis with the Taoiseach before the election date? The Taoiseach might answer this question because he has been asked twice and he has not answered it. The Taoiseach promised that 40,000 homes would be delivered last year, and we know that just 30,300 homes were delivered. Last week we learned that the number of planning permissions collapsed by almost 22% in 2024. Today the Central Bank is telling us the Government will miss its housing targets for the next three years. We also learned today that house prices have increased by 8.1% over the past year.”
“With regard to the Zalewski case, the access to fair procedure he has talked about has to apply to people who have been in abusive relationships, who have been subject to coercive control or who have suffered horrendous abuse in their relationships. There must be fair procedure for them. Any reading of the Zalewski case ruling and the reference to fair procedure would surely acknowledge that access to fair procedure must apply to people in those situations.”
“I endorse Deputy Nash's request for that commitment from the Minister of State that he will look at this and work on getting a solution to it. It would be very welcome if he would do that. I will make a point to him. I accept his bona fides in what he is saying about the Supreme Court ruling on the Zalewski case. What is pertinent in that ruling is that, because of the quasi-judicial role involved here, there must be cognisance of the need to follow fair procedures. Deputies Nash and Doherty, the Minister of State and I all recognise that accommodating those who have been put in horrendous situations and their access to recourse must be at the heart of fair procedure. There is nothing fair in a procedure that excludes them from recourse. I bring that point strongly to the Minister of State's attention.”
“I cannot possibly see how it is defensible not to allow some level of flexibility and discretion here so that when people are in those terrible situations and need recourse, at least that can be considered. Every Member of this House, across parties, in opposition and government, would surely support what is being attempted to be achieved in this amendment. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider.”
“I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this. The case for this amendment has been made strongly. Yesterday in the audiovisual room, Members of the House from Opposition and Government parties heard directly from women who are survivors of domestic abuse and have gone through horrendous situations. They spoke passionately about the lack of support for them and the lack of refuge places that have trapped survivors of domestic violence in horrendous situations. Their clear message to all of us as legislators is that we need to do everything we can to support them in every possible way and that they are not consistently getting the support they need and deserve. All this amendment seeks to do is allow some level of flexibility and discretion so that people, usually women in those situations, would have recourse.”
“One of these credit servicing firms has made no cuts to its rates at all over five ECB rate cuts. They are charging people punitive rates that are grossly unfair and they never signed up for. That also has to be addressed.”
“They cannot see a route out of this for themselves at any point. I have been contacted by people in situations where they have been looking to sell but have had grave difficulties getting back possession of deeds from the credit servicing firm. These are all people whose mortgages were sold on for values of maybe 30% or 40%, yet they are shown no co-operation or leniency and, in fact, are treated in a very punitive way. This has a huge impact on their mental health and wellbeing. This legislation allows people some recourse and it is welcome that the loophole is being shut, but much more needs to be done on the entire area to help people in situations who have been really aggressively pursued. There are media reports today that another ECB rate cut is due.”
“I also welcome this. It is very important. Like others, I have spoken to people who have been treated absolutely abysmally by some of these credit servicing firms. These include people who have been harassed or who have tried to get out of the situation and tried to sell. On contacting the firms to say they want to sell, they have been told that if they want to talk about that, then they will be charged a fee. They have not had recourse. These people, who have been trapped in these situations - that is their language - have over the past 15 years effectively paid off the vast bulk of the value of their mortgages in real terms, but because of the punitive interest rates they have been subjected to, they are still trapped with very heavy mortgage payments that they cannot get out of.”