Ciarán Ahern
Dublin South-West · Labour Party · Ireland
“What we are asking for today is simply that the Government lives up to the commitment made in the programme for Government to carry out a new, independent feasibility study for an extension of the MetroLink from where it is currently due to end in Charlemont, out to Dublin south west.”
“It examined quite a nonsensical route that finished abruptly in Knocklyon, and therefore it significantly underestimated the cost benefit of the project.”
“This all comes back to funding our schools. All too often, despite the much publicised overspend in the education budget, schools still have to fight tooth and nail to get the resources they need. I never predicted that so much of my time as a TD would be spent working with local schools on funding and resourcing issues.”
“As the capitation grant is not covering basic operating costs, many school boards feel that to avoid running deficits, which they will get into trouble for from their governing bodies, they have to find funds elsewhere.”
“As the Minister knows, parents are paying hand over fist for ancillary school costs, be it for school uniforms, laptops, school transport or the so-called voluntary contributions. We cannot say we have free education in this country if the whole architecture that enables proper participation is hugely expensive for parents.”
“Some parents are now having to pay hundreds of euro for devices if their children are to just fully participate in school. As this motion states, we are at risk of creating a digital divide and new inequalities in our education system unless we put further supports in place for low-income families. Kevin Shortall, principal of St.”
The complete record
Every one of 909 lines we hold for Ciarán Ahern, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 19.
“We cannot allow that to happen in any aviation operation and it is particularly unacceptable in search and rescue where the stakes could not be higher. If we undermine safety, we fail not only the crews but every person who may one day rely on them. This is not an abstract concern. International research in aviation and emergency response operations has repeatedly shown that fatigue is one of the most significant underlying contributors to operational risk. Regulators the world over have spent decades designing frameworks to measure, manage and mitigate fatigue. Those frameworks begin with accurate recording of working time. If we start from inaccurate data - if the system records 16.5 hours where the reality is 24 hours - then every subsequent fatigue-management measure is compromised.”
“Emergencies do not arrive on schedule. The crews prepare themselves mentally for the possibility that at any moment they could be called to respond. Indeed, they could be asleep at 2 a.m. and in the air 20 minutes later. They might complete one operation, return to the base and be back out again in a matter of minutes. Under those circumstances, it is simply not credible to suggest that a portion of their time spent at the base constitutes proper rest. They have to be ready to go at a moment’s notice, and that is mentally taxing if nothing else. It is only rest if they can actually fully disengage from their work, which they clearly cannot. Ultimately, when we undercount hours worked, we underestimate fatigue. When fatigue is underestimated, safety systems begin to erode.”
“However, the absolute foundation when we are talking about search and rescue teams is the well-being of the crew members; how well rested and supported they are, how much we value their time and how much we take their fatigue seriously. Search and rescue crews work in extremely demanding conditions both physically and mentally. They wake from an interrupted sleep to launch into high-risk operations, often where life-or-death decisions are made by them. They work in darkness, storms and emergencies, in moments where one wrong judgment can have devastating consequences. To suggest that the time spent over a 24-hour shift at a base or a nearby hotel or wherever does not count as work or contribute towards a crew member’s fatigue is a nonsense. Search and rescue crews do not arrive at a base expecting a quiet night.”
“However, these crews are under significant operational constraints and are clearly at the disposal of their employer throughout the entire duty period, including the overnight hours. According to our own regulations, this time should be fully recognised as working time, not to mention the ECJ rulings that I have just outlined. The motion also touches on the issue of fatigue, rest requirements and the safety of crew members on search and rescue teams. Aviation safety, maritime safety and emergency-response safety are often framed in terms of equipment standards, training requirements, regulatory oversight and so on. All of these matter.”
“Matzak, a retained firefighter in Belgium, determined that a firefighter’s standby time at home counted as working time due to significant restrictions, including the requirement to respond within eight minutes. D.J. v. Radiotelevizija Slovenija clarified that standby time may constitute working time even when the worker is not required to stay in a specific location, if the obligations imposed significantly limit the worker’s ability to use that time freely. In essence, I have serious questions and concerns about whether this factoring arrangement is in compliance with both national and EU regulations and case law. It appears to me that it is not. The practical effect of the arrangement is that a 24-hour duty with no night call-out is calculated as 17 hours of work.”
“The fewer hours counted as work, the more work the operator can make a crew do before reaching that threshold. Essentially, therefore, fewer crew members are hired and those who are hired are being paid less per hour. We can also look to recent rulings in the European Court of Justice, which provide clear guidance on the interpretation of working time in the context of standby duties. Cases brought by the union of doctors in public health services in Valencia and by a Mr. Jaeger against the city of Kiel established that on-site standby time, including time spent sleeping, must be fully regarded as working time when physical presence at the workplace is required. That is pretty clear. One brought by a Mr.”
“It means the actual hours a worker is required to be available for work in a manner that restricts his or her rest and obliges him or her to be ready to perform his or her duties. In this case, that is 24 full hours. Importantly, the regulation upholds the principle that it operates without prejudice to more favourable standards established under other laws or agreements, and it explicitly prohibits the dilution of these protections through less favourable or alternative arrangements. I fail to see how requiring workers to remain on-site for the duration of their so-called standby period and, in effect, reducing their pay for that pleasure amounts to a more favourable standard. That is what this factoring arrangement is all about. It is about circumventing the annual limit of 2,000 working hours.”
“In effect, it is an erasure of labour, and no worker’s labour should be reclassified in any way that diminishes his or her rights or, particularly in this case, his or her safety. Statutory Instrument 507/2006, which gives effect to the European Council Directive 2000/79, states: “working time’ means any period during which a crew member is working, at the employer's disposal and carrying out the activity or duties of his or her work, including on-call duty performed by a crew member where he or she is required to be physically present at his or her place of work. Basically, it is saying that working time is working time. It does not mean some of the working time. It does not mean the hours that are convenient are to count.”
“They are not on a rota where half their time is guaranteed rest. They are, for their duty period, under this new contract, on base, ready to take off at a few minutes’ notice, day or night, in conditions that are often unpredictable, demanding or dangerous. I note as well that in response to parliamentary questions from me and others, the Minister recognises that the new contract obliged crew members who are on duty to remain at the base for the duration of that 24-hour period. Being on duty and being on standby are very different things, but this factoring arrangement treats a part of that duty as being on standby. Factoring down crew members hours is not a technical quirk.”
“I would argue that this very much worsens working conditions for our crucial Coast Guard and search and rescue crew members. There is also the factoring issue, which I think is the main gripe that the search and rescue workers have with the new arrangement, and rightly so. It is a very simple question. If workers are required to be available on-site or in a nearby hotel, alert and fully deployable for 24 hours straight, then why, on paper, are we pretending they are only working for 16.5 hours? This factoring arrangement, used to reduce recorded duty time, might be common in certain standby contexts, but that is the nub of the issue. Speaking as a former employment lawyer, as far as I am concerned, these crews are not in a standby context. They are not sleeping at home with a pager or whatever.”
“The authority acknowledges that CHC allowed for crew members to be on standby from their own home, whereas Bristow Ireland, the new operator, does not. Why the change and why has the IAA allowed it? Was CHC in the wrong? If it was in the wrong in allowing crew members to be on standby from home and that somehow undermined their work or response time, why did the IAA allow that practice to carry on for the duration of CHC’s contract? The IAA said in its response that the aeronautical notice, which sets out the flight-time limitations and rest requirements, has not really changed since 2017 and that both operators would be under the same requirements. This appears to be very much a choice being made by the new operator and endorsed by the IAA.”
“I thank Sinn Féin and Deputies Cullinane and McGuinness for their work on this motion. I pay tribute to the search and rescue crews in our Coast Guard around the country. They do genuinely heroic work and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. It is extremely disappointing that this motion is even necessary and that the Government has put down an amendment to wash its hands of the issue, because it reflects the lack of respect that these vital workers have been shown in recent months. I have been dealing with the issue on behalf of a constituent who is a winch crewman paramedic on a rescue helicopter. I wrote to the Minister of State on the matter in August but my office does not appear to have received a response. I did, however, receive a response from the IAA to queries I made. There were a few notable matters in its response.”
“I look forward to the Bill being taken at Second Stage and to having engagement on it with the Minister and other Members. I appeal to all Members of the House to support the Bill.”
“Data centres support jobs, investment, huge tax receipts and a digital ecosystem that most of us rely on every day, whether we are doomscrolling late at night, or if, like me, you are watching Troy Parrott's 96th minute winner on repeat in slow motion with the Brazilian commentary. We cannot pretend that limitless unconditional data centre expansion is compatible with a functioning electricity system or a credible climate policy. Our climate objectives and the protection of households must be baked into every aspect of our industrial strategy. The Bill I am introducing provides the legal tools to do exactly that. Data centres can play a role in Ireland's future, but not at the expense of our climate, our energy security or our people.”
“Its purpose is simple, namely, to give the CRU the clear legal authority that it says it currently lacks. The Bill would allow the regulator to require renewable on-site generation and impose specific emissions reduction or offsetting obligations on data centres and other large energy users. If enacted, the CRU would have the power to insist that data centres generate the electricity they need and that they do so through sustainable and renewable sources. The Labour Party has long called for a moratorium on new data centre development, but we recognise that they are a fact of modern life. This Bill is an effort to be constructive in how they are developed in this country. We recognise Ireland's status as the Silicon Valley of Europe.”
“It does not specify where the electricity must come from. Under the current proposal, a data centre could comply by building new fossil fuel generators, locking in more carbon emissions at the very moment we need to be phasing out gas. The CRU says it cannot legally impose a renewable-only requirement. Under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, public bodies must act insofar as practicable in line with the national climate objective, but the Act frames that objective in broad terms. The CRU is arguing that it does not give regulators the explicit authority to mandate specific emissions reductions or abatement measures, such as requiring data centres to use renewable generation. This is a serious legislative gap, one that could undermine our climate strategy. My Bill seeks to address that gap.”
“Large data centres must hold greenhouse gas licenses and report emissions annually. A total of 24 licenses have been issued to date and it is estimated that data centre electricity use produced 1.53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2023. These figures may be conservative. They are also absorbing almost all of Ireland's new renewable electricity. Research by Professor Hannah Daly of UCC shows that as soon as new wind or solar comes online, data centre demand soaks it up, leaving little scope to decarbonise transport, heating or industry. We are currently miles off reaching our climate targets, and if this continues, Ireland could face penalties and costs of up to €26 billion. That, too, will fall to taxpayers. While the CRU's proposal for mandatory on-site generation is welcome, it contains one glaring omission.”
“Today, that figure is above 20% and the CRU projects it will hit 30% by the early 2030s. Data centres will soon consume the equivalent energy of every household in the country, urban and rural combined. Our electricity grid is struggling to keep up. For that reason, the Government is now investing billions of euro in upgrading the grid, as well as in new sustainable power generation and additional gas-fired capacity. A confidential memo from the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure last year put it plainly - soaring demand, largely attributable to data centres, was driving the need for new generation and grid reinforcement. Households are paying for the infrastructure that keeps data centres running. The emissions story is equally troubling.”
“As we are all aware, Ireland's electricity grid is under massive strain and one industry is overwhelmingly responsible, that is, data centres. Earlier this year, the CRU took an important step by proposing new rules for how large energy users, like data centres, can connect to our grid. It proposed that new centres must provide on-site or nearby generation or storage equal to the electricity they draw from the grid. In other words, if you take one MW, you must be able to produce one MW. While this is a welcome development, it is notable that the CRU did not specify the sources through which that electricity must be generated. I will come back to that point, but to provide some context to this Bill, it is worth taking stock of where we are with data centres. In 2015, they accounted for 5% of our electricity demand.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to enable the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities to direct that offers for connection to the electricity transmission and distribution systems be made subject to terms and conditions requiring that specified measures be taken for the purpose of avoiding, preventing, reducing, offsetting or abating greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise in furtherance of the national climate objective; for that purpose to amend the Electricity Regulation Act 1999; and to provide for related matters. This is a proud moment for me as the Electricity Regulation (Climate Action and Connection to Distribution and Transmission Systems) Bill 2025 – that is its Short Title - is my first Bill.”
“We need to see what might be called a fair deal for SMEs, hauliers and workers in the sector, one that recognises the essential role it plays in our economy and one that ensures small businesses are not crushed under the weight of transport costs they have little to no power to control. We can and must deliver a freight system that is affordable, sustainable and fair.”
“We in the Labour Party reject that approach outright. A sustainable logistics sector must include fair wages and decent and safe working hours and conditions. It must include investment in driver training and apprenticeships and, crucially, supports to attract more people, especially young people, into the profession. A thriving SME sector cannot be built on the backs of exploited labour. I conclude be re-emphasising the rising cost of road haulage is not a niche concern but a national economic issue. Every household feels it when prices rise. Every business feels it in their margins. When SMEs struggle communities who rely on them for jobs feel it.”
“If we had more streamlined compliance processes that reduced duplication, paperwork and costs while of course maintaining high standards, it would have a really big impact on the load placed on SMEs and reduce what is often a massive stressor for people who are running them. SMEs support safety, environmental responsibility and good working conditions but they cannot absorb endless administrative burdens created without consultation with them and that do not always give due regard to efficiency. I emphasise any policy that might be produced for freight must also protect the workers who keep goods moving, including the drivers, mechanics, logistics staff and so on. All too often when we see rising business costs, the finger is first pointed at the cost of labour and this is used as an excuse to squeeze workers’ pay and conditions.”
“The new personal injury guidelines were introduced in 2019 and between then and 2023 there was a drop, on average, of 40% in claim costs yet over roughly the same period liability premiums increased by 17%, according to the Central Bank. Meanwhile, insurance providers in Ireland are enjoying profits double the European average. It is scandalous. I echo my colleague Labour Party spokesperson on finance, Deputy Nash, as well as groups such as the Alliance for Insurance Reform, in calling for Government to bring about meaningful changes to the insurance sector. Genuine reform should lower premiums not just for the average motorist but for hauliers and the SME fleet as well. Another area that requires serious change is the administrative burden on SMEs.”
“Cost-neutral measures such as how we manage our roads and even toll lanes to reduce idling time can also impact positively on the emissions coming from our road haulage sector. A renewed commitment to and focus on rail freight is really crucial though to providing alternatives and improving our infrastructure. There has to be a modal shift and that will require investment in our rail infrastructure. That also means better integration between ports, rail and road networks so we are not forcing SMEs into using the most expensive road of transport simply because it is the only one available to them. Insurance premiums are also an issue. I will not labour the point because I made it last week when we were talking about motoring costs, but the Government and, indeed, the public have been hoodwinked by the insurance industry.”
“We need to see a scaling-up of electric and hydro HSV infrastructure so that SMEs are not stuck paying high diesel prices while the rest of Europe moves ahead. I acknowledge that hydrogen and battery electric trucks remain all too rare here and that 50% of our haulage fleet is over ten years old and diesel-powered. That being the case, as our hauliers try to decarbonise and reduce our transport emissions these additional costs should not all be passed on to the businesses that rely on them. The Government should consider rebates and tax supports to incentivise the uptake of low-carbon but often higher-cost fuels like HVO and biodiesel blends. Government should also consider incentives to replace older, higher-emitting trucks with older, more efficient models.”
“When those businesses struggle, the communities around them suffer too with fewer jobs, fewer training opportunities and fewer reasons for young people to stay. If we are serious about balanced regional development, we must be serious about supporting the cost base of the businesses that anchor those regions. We should consider a national freight strategy. I know we have a road haulage strategy, which extends out to 2031, and a rail freight strategy, which extends out to 2040, but it would be helpful to marry the two. We need a plan that is more than a collection of disconnected initiatives. Accelerating investment in alternatives will be key if we are to overcome the challenges faced by the haulage sector and, by extension, by SMEs that rely on road haulage. It is all the more reason we need an holistic overarching freight strategy.”
“Nor can we pretend that the haulage sector and the infrastructure around it - the trucks on our motorways in the early hours of the morning and the local drivers who keep our shelves stocked and our supply chains continuous - are somehow an optional extra in our economy. They are essential but unfortunately, all too often, Government policy treats them as an afterthought. We need to acknowledge that these rising costs do not fall evenly. This is an issue of concern in terms of balanced regional development. Businesses in rural Ireland, which are already further away from ports and major urban centres, are hit hardest. Every extra kilometre, every extra fuel hike and every insurance increase compounds the challenges they already face.”
“Our businesses rely on road haulage for almost all domestic freight movement, an issue I will come back to. Unlike larger corporations, SMEs cannot negotiate better rates or hedge their fuel costs on international markets. They cannot simply pass increases directly on to consumers either. They take the hit and very often, they are pushed dangerously close to the edge. From my perspective, this is not just a temporary market disturbance. This is structural. It exposes weaknesses in Ireland's transport infrastructure, the lack of alternatives and the absence of a clear Government strategy for sustainable and affordable freight movement. We cannot ask SMEs to compete internationally while saddling them with some of the highest logistics costs in Europe.”
“The cost of transport has become a pressure point that exposes the other vulnerabilities in these businesses. Haulage costs have risen sharply over recent years. Many of the same issues that are faced when it comes to the general cost of motoring, which we discussed here last week, are being felt in terms of haulage costs. Those issues include fuel price volatility and insurance premiums that remain stubbornly high. Other issues include increased compliance costs. We cannot discount the lingering logistical impact of Brexit. An SME owner who once could plan a year's costs with some certainty in advance now faces almost monthly guessing games in many cases. Hauliers, and by extension SMEs, are asked to absorb these rising costs while dealing with a chronic shortage of drivers.”
“I welcome the fact that we are discussing haulage costs and the SME sector more broadly today. It is an issue that goes to the heart of our economic well-being and our regional development - more pertinently, our balanced regional development - as well as the survival of thousands of SMEs across our country. The cost of moving goods on Irish roads is one of the greatest threats to the competitiveness and, many cases, survival of many of our small businesses, such as artisan food producers in the west, engineering firms in the midlands and family-run exporters in the south east. The Labour Party has long championed the role of SMEs in sustaining good jobs and vibrant local economies. Today, those businesses are being squeezed from all sides.”
“That is all premised on a city that does not have any traffic congestion for it to work properly. We can get carried away sometimes worrying about contactless payments and things like that. People just want a reliable service from their buses. Some of that is down to our now having to make decisions to prioritise our public transport on our roads, reallocate our road space and make sure that public transport is prioritised over everything else for the greater good of the community.”
“However, when we are bringing in new routes and redesigning a whole network, people also need to understand how the new routes will work for them. I know the NTA has said it has briefed public representatives, but people should not need to come to their TDs to have it explained to them how these new bus routes will work or how they will get from A to B again. I encourage the NTA to arrange more meetings in community centres around the city to explain the changes in these routes to people face to face. This may not be as clear when you get a leaflet through the door - if you do get that leaflet through the door, and people have questioned some of that. The new BusConnects system requires people to change or to move from bus to bus where there may not be a direct route any more and you may be expected to change.”
“The Minister of State was just getting to the good stuff there; I see it in front of me in the statement. Obviously, we welcome the increased investment in public transport. It is long overdue and it is great to see it. The Minister of State mentioned - and he can come back to me on this in his supplementary response - that the S6 will move to a high-frequency timetable. I would be interested to know when that might happen. BusConnects has the potential to lead to a much better service, which is why I support it. It is right that our bus services and bus routes are being redesigned for a city that has changed immeasurably since these bus routes were first implemented, in fact following the old tramlines through the city and keeping many of the old route names, such as the 16.”
“There may be a case to make that there is sufficient demand for an additional route that may more closely follow the old 49 route. Ultimately, I want BusConnects to work but people need reliable and efficient services. We cannot allow a situation to arise where people get into their cars again because they do not have confidence in our public transport.”
“I have raised this with the NTA and it has held its hands up a little bit and explained there were teething issues, as we would expect with new routes, and issues with traffic light sequences. Regarding this route, constituents have been raising with me that there are longer journey times as a result of the new route, particularly from Tallaght and Firhouse. Some people find it is taking them half an hour longer on the new F route than it would have taken them to get into town on the previous 49 bus route. It seems to me that the main issue is the fact the new route has been diverted onto residential roads, which have high levels of traffic congestion and do not have dedicated bus lanes. I am not suggesting the entire route be redrawn but I hope the Minister and the NTA will take onboard the feedback from transport users in my area.”
“I will refer directly to what one of my constituents wrote because she really hit the nail on the head. She emailed me and said it was easy to collect public contracts and revenue while leaving commuters stranded but far harder to uphold the social responsibility that came with providing essential transport to an entire region. She said that when profit took precedence over quality and maintenance, the result was precisely what passengers of the S8 endured daily, with disruption, uncertainty and disregard. The other bus route I want to raise is the new F spine and particularly the F1 route. Since its launch in mid-October, it has faced a lot of the same issues.”
“The service did improve but now I need to know why the same problems have started to creep back in again. We need to nip it in the bud. We should not have people accepting that, every few months, there will be a period when the bus they rely on to get to work, school or wherever becomes as unreliable as a chocolate teapot for a period of time. The S4 and S6 serve UCD. Again, numerous students have been on to me over the last few weeks telling me they are missing lectures because the bus just never turned up or a series of buses in a row did not turn up. It is noteworthy that these routes are run by Go-Ahead. I have never been particularly comfortable with the privatisation of our bus routes and the level of service on Go-Ahead routes in general has left a lot to be desired.”
“I will touch on the problems we are seeing on the S routes first, which include the S4, the S6 and the S8 through my area. These routes were rolled out in November 2023. They have been plagued with issues ever since. It was particularly bad at the beginning of this year, and in the last couple of weeks, unfortunately, the same issues we had at the start of the year have started to rear their heads again, with ghost buses, cancellations and delays. I was listening to the questions the Minister of State took earlier and I know that other Members have raised these issues with him also. The excuse given earlier this year was that the operator of these routes, which is Go-Ahead, was short on mechanics, and I understood that new mechanics were taken on afterwards.”
“I thank the Minister of State for staying with us to this relatively late hour tonight. I want to raise some issues that have arisen on certain bus routes that serve my constituency. Some routes are new and others have been in place for a while. I am a big supporter of the BusConnects project. The aim of improving connectivity across our city is very important. I have been on the record for years locally, and now here in the Dáil, as a staunch defender of BusConnects. It is precisely because of this support that it is important we address issues as they arise. I want BusConnects to work for people, so it is important that we listen to them, take their feedback on board and find workable solutions. Unfortunately, I have had loads of constituents contact me again in the last few weeks about their own bus disconnect issues.”
“We welcome the fact that planning permission for that project has been granted. We want to see MetroLink extended to Dublin South-West. For now, however, we are dependent on buses that can be caught up in traffic. It is vitally important that people can rely on public transport, that buses are prioritised on our roads and that fares are kept low.”
“To be clear, I support BusConnects. The goal of improving interconnectivity is laudable. However, we are seeing a situation arise in the context of certain routes whereby public confidence is being undermined. We have also seen recurring problems on the S6 and S8 routes since they were launched. Frequent cancellations and breakdowns were happening earlier in the year. At that time, Go-Ahead, which operates the routes, blamed this on a lack of mechanics. However, the same issues have started to rear their heads again in the past couple of weeks. Will the Minister of State and the NTA engage meaningfully when my constituents contact them about these issues instead of issuing pro forma responses the whole time? My area has long been poorly served by public transport. In the long term, we want to see the MetroLink being built.”
“Even talking about private car use from a sustainability perspective, we need greater investment in electric vehicle charging networks, in supports for used EV purchases and in making clean transport accessible to ordinary households. We also have to do better on the roll-out of new public transport initiatives. For example, in the context of the launch of phase 7 of the BusConnects programme a few weeks ago, many of the new routes serve my constituency of Dublin South-West. I have been inundated with complaints from constituents regarding the new F routes, be it in the context of ghost buses, cancellations or longer commute times into work. On the F1 route, it is taking between 20 to 30 minutes longer for some people to get into town from Tallaght. A public petition has been launched in my area requesting a rethink of the route.”
“Over 64% of daily journeys in Ireland are made by private car. In rural areas, that figure rises to 80%, yet one third of rural households still have no access to public transport. That is a policy failure. The long-term solution to high motoring costs has to be a reduction in car dependence. We can do that through continued investment in rural bus networks under Connecting Ireland. There has been good progress in recent years with the roll-out of Local Link routes. We need to build on this. We should also continue to build on the reduced fares introduced in 2022 and deliver safe cycling and walking infrastructure, particularly in commuter towns.”
“I cannot support a blanket reversal in respect of carbon tax. Instead, I encourage the Government and other parties to take on board the Labour Party's proposal for a refundable carbon tax credit for low- and middle-income households. This would enable us to protect those struggling with costs while making the big polluters pay their fair share and ensuring that the tax is progressive in outcome, not regressive in effect. Climate action must be socially just but abandoning a polluter pays principle in climate policy altogether would harm both the environment and the very people we aim to protect. To return to the issue of public transport and active travel, for too many people, a car is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Motoring has become expensive because there has been underinvestment in alternatives for decades.”
“In budget 2025, €230 million from the carbon tax was allocated to the warmer homes scheme and retrofitting supports for low-income households, €100 million went to fuel allowance top-ups and social protection measures and €80 million was invested in rural bus and cycle infrastructure. If carbon tax increases were to be reversed, as the motion proposes, those funds would also be removed. This is money that directly supports the very people who are struggling the most. Carbon tax currently adds about 2.5 cent per litre to the price of petrol and diesel. That is equivalent to roughly €1.25 per 50-litre fill. That is not an insignificant amount, but it is certainly not the primary driver of record fuel prices. Global oil markets, refinery capacity and currency fluctuations are far more influential.”
“We need a windfall levy on excess insurance profits where they exceed normal competitive returns. I also note the Labour Party's support for Sinn Féin's Judicial Council (Amendment) Bill, which is mentioned in the motion, as a means of ensuring that judicial reforms translate into actual savings for consumers. Where the Labour Party and I diverge from the motion is on the issue of carbon tax. This is the second Sinn Féin motion I have spoken on to which I have not been able to give my full support because of the position taken on carbon tax. The Labour Party supports a just transition, not a punitive one. That is why we fought successfully for carbon tax revenue to be fully ring-fenced, with at least €500 million per year now directed towards energy efficiency, retrofitting, fuel poverty alleviation and rural transport initiatives.”
“Nobody should pay more simply because they cannot pay it all at once. Motor insurance remains one of the great frustrations of Irish life. After the 2021 introduction of the new personal injury guidelines, average claim costs fell by almost 40%. However, as the Central Bank's 2024 report on the insurance sector shows, premium reductions averaged only 5% to 6%. Insurance companies here have enjoyed profit margins of 10% to 12%, which are far above the European norm of 5% to 6%. The gap between the two represents hundreds of millions of euro in excess profit extracted from motorists who were promised lower premiums in return for legal reforms. It is long past time that the Government stood up to the insurance industry, as my colleague Deputy Nash has called on it to do.”
“People have better things to do with their money in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis than handing it over to some private investment vehicle. The motion also points to the fact that paying motor tax in instalments is more expensive than paying it in a single lump sum. For example, a driver paying an annual tax of €390 will pay around €410 if he or she chooses to pay quarterly. That is a surcharge of more than 5% and it disproportionately penalises lower income motorists who cannot afford to pay the lump sum. This is a simple matter of fairness. The Labour Party has been calling for reform of this unfair system for years. We proposed in 2023 that motor tax instalment surcharges be abolished or at least reduced to a purely administrative cost, estimated at less than 1%. The system, as it stands, is obviously regressive.”
“TII estimates that road tolls raise around €400 million annually. Much of that revenue goes into the maintenance and financing of national roads, but much also does not. It goes into the pockets of private operators that have already made a healthy return on their investment if they are involved in financing the construction of whatever road it is. I am not against tolls in principle as long as they go towards maintenance of our roads and making them safer. The proliferation of bigger and heavier vehicles like SUVs on our roads do more damage to roads and pavements than smaller, lighter vehicles of previous decades so more maintenance of our roads is needed these days. I have an issue with increasing tolls in order to bump up the profits of operators.”