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 12 of 19.
“Some of those contracts, particularly those signed in the early 2000s, were seemingly poorly negotiated and excessively generous to private operators. Most of those deals were signed by Fianna Fáil-led Governments between 1997 and 2008. The legacy of those gold-plated public-private partnerships has left us with inflexible contracts and traffic guarantee clauses that mean the State sometimes compensates private companies when fewer cars use their roads. That is an outrage. The Labour Party has long argued for greater transparency in respect of public-private partnerships and a move back towards public ownership of critical transport infrastructure. Where profits are excessive and clauses allow tolls to rise automatically every January, every legal and financial tool must be used to renegotiate the contracts involved.”
“According to AA Ireland, the average annual cost of running a car in 2024 was about €11,500, an increase of nearly 8% on the previous year that was driven largely by higher fuel, insurance and maintenance costs. Petrol and diesel prices in Ireland continue to rank among the highest in the EU. As of last month, petrol averaged €1.86 per litre compared with an EU average of €1.72 and diesel cost €1.79 per litre compared with an EU average of €1.66. Rural drivers who often have to rely on cars due to the lack of viable public transport can easily spend upwards of €100 a week just commuting to work. These costs need to be addressed responsibly. As the motion notes, there are 11 toll roads in operation here. Eight of these are run on the basis of public-private partnership arrangements.”
“I recognise that for many people private car use is their only feasible option a lot of the time. Across the country, the cost of getting from A to B has become a genuine source of stress for many households, workers, small businesses and communities, particularly those in rural Ireland. This is as much an issue of economic fairness and social inclusion as anything else. It demands a response that protects working people today while preparing for a sustainable and affordable transport system into the future. Motorists have faced sharp cost increases over recent years. The average motor insurance premium rose by approximately 9% in 2024 according to the CSO following a period of relative stability, as the Minister of State mentioned.”
“In some parts of the country, it remains a fact that public and active travel infrastructure is virtually non-existent. It is no surprise that we find ourselves here. There have been improvements in recent years, like the 90-minute fare and the expansion of Local Link routes, but much more is needed to get us to a place where public transport is the preferred option for most people. I am not suggesting that every journey can or should be made on public transport. I use a car, but I recognise that some journeys are just prohibitively difficult to make on public transport or on a bike. Wherever possible, we should encourage and, more importantly, enable people to use public transport, to walk or to cycle. Unfortunately, that is aspirational for now.”
“My thanks to Sinn Féin for tabling this motion on the cost of motoring, which is a serious cost for people. At the outset, I want to lay my cards on the table. As transport spokesperson for the Labour Party, I will always advocate for public transport and active travel ahead of private cars. I am of the view that we should do everything we can to encourage people to use greener, more sustainable modes of transport. That means making sure the option to travel by bus or rail or to cycle is available for everyone, wherever they may be going. The unfortunate reality is that we are obviously not there yet. There are a host of reasons that people remain reliant on their cars, including accessibility, and the fact that successive Governments invested in roads and ripped up railways across the country over decades.”
“This Bill is simply seeking that another form of art would be recognised for the purposes of applying for existing grants and funding. It is a simple but effective Bill. It is a one-word change to an Act, but one which could make a huge difference to our comedic acts. I commend it to the House.”
“From living with someone at the start of their comedy career, I have seen the sacrifice, diligence and dedication that is required, the long and antisocial hours, the poor personal hygiene and the inability to wash dishes or carry out routine household chores, but it was all done for the sake of their art, which is their passion, or was it? It is not art, according to the State. Aside from the monetary aspect to this, how insulting and disheartening must it be to know that the State does not recognise what you are pouring their heart and soul into as art? It is not good enough for the Minister to kick the can down the road on this for 18 months for the sake of a one-word amendment. I thought this Government wanted to be one of implementation and action. Here is a good chance. There is no monetary ask here.”
“I owe Seán a lot when it comes to him sticking his neck out on the line for my political career and doing some brilliant videos with me during my election campaigns. He is one of my oldest and dearest friends and I have shared the ups and downs of his comedy career with him. Irish stand-up comedy is not an easy environment to get a foothold in, let alone make money from. There are numerous small venues and comedy nights around Dublin, like in the International Bar, where comedians can get a start, but I have seen first-hand what a difficult lifestyle it is. We all know that many comedians need to go on the dole to maintain themselves. The fees for appearing at a comedy night like that are absolutely paltry. I saw when Foil Arms and Hog were starting out that they were splitting these fees in three between them.”
“I even did some sketch writing with them after that and we almost went to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival together, but it did not happen at the time. They kept writing. They founded Foil Arms and Hog. They would not admit this to themselves, but we are under Dáil privilege here now, so what are they going to do? I was obviously the most talented and best looking of the group - the fifth Beatle, if you will - but they Pete Bested me. They ditched me and moved on to bigger and better things. I am fine; I am over it. I certainly am not going to hold it against every comedian in the country - at least not anymore. I went on to share a flat with Seán Flanagan from Foil Arms and Hog for many years when they were starting out.”
“We are in the middle of a housing crisis and these guys can literally charge what they like, and yet they are considered to be artists and comedians are not. It is a fundamentally silly and illogical approach. This Bill is very close to my heart, as some of my best friends are comedians. I dabbled in a little bit of comedy previously. I am proud that I am good friends with the guys in the sketch comedy group, Foil Arms and Hog, who are one of the outstanding comedic acts in this country and one of our most successful now. However, I knew them when they were younger and not successful and they were just foil arms and piglet; I apologise for that. We did some writing and acting together as part of a Father Ted play that we put on when we were all in the drama society in UCD quite a long time ago now.”
“The definition of art in the existing Arts Act, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh pointed out, refers to "any creative or interpretive expression" and includes visual arts, theatre, literature, music, dance, opera, film, circus and architecture. It seems like a really broad definition, and I just cannot understand how the Arts Council does not see comedy as falling within that. I have heard that the supposed reasoning for this is that comedy is some sort of commercial art form. That in itself is, ironically, a joke. Every artist and every art form ultimately aspires to be commercially viable. We have some commercially successful comedians, yes, but there are plenty who are not. We give Arts Council grants for literature, yet Sally Rooney exists. The current definition of "arts" also includes architecture.”
“I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "2024" and substitute the following: "be deemed to be read a second time this day one month.". I commend Deputy Ó Snodaigh on bringing forward this Bill, which I and the Labour Party are firmly behind. I also pay tribute to Ailish McCarthy for initiating the campaign three years ago and pursuing it so diligently over the past few years. This is a matter of dignity and respect for our comedians, who, to be clear, absolutely are artists and are loved and valued by the public here and the world over, yet somehow are not recognised as artists for the purpose of receiving any State support. It really amazed me to learn that comedy is not recognised as an art form. I think most people would assume it is.”
“It is also relevant to the housing plan that will be published later this month by the Minister's colleague, the housing Minister, in terms of how and where we build, the push for councils to rezone around the country and the potential for urban sprawl where there is ad hoc building on land as farmers sell it up. It strikes me that the sooner this report is released and worked on the better because there are a lot of big decisions at the moment that will be informed by it.”
“That is encouraging. There are many big decisions coming up that the report could inform. It is there to inform future climate action plans, some of which we have been looking at and reviewing recently at the climate committee. It strikes me it is also relevant to the nitrates derogation negotiations. It seems, based on leaks from the report, that there is talk of intensification of dairy farming in the south east of the country, where we already have huge water quality issues. We have previously discussed the issues around Lady's Island Lake this year.”
“To the extent that we want to manage and plan how our land is used strategically, we have many people to bring with us. It is important they be brought into the process as soon as possible.”
“I am glad to hear the Minister will be publishing it. His predecessor as Minister for the environment described it as the most important project in the previous programme for Government. It is vital that it be released. I am not quite sure why the Minister is holding on to it. It is a report designed to inform policymakers and I am not sure whether the brains trust the Minister has put together are the only ones who should be looking at it. I do not know why it has not gone to the Climate Change Advisory Council. It asked in September of last year for it to be completed. It could be sent to the Oireachtas committee. It could and should be scrutinised by every stakeholder. Phase 1 of the land use review discovered that 78% of land in this country is held by private landowners.”
“We are in the teeth of a climate and biodiversity crisis. An initiative the last Government took was to commission a land use review to understand how to optimise land management in this country. Has the Minister received the phase 2 report of the land use review? Why has it not been released yet? When does he plan to release it?”
“Of course, we can slap someone who is suffering from addiction with a charge or a custodial sentence and pretend that will solve a problem; it simply will not. Drug use is just not a choice for people who are suffering from addiction and punishing them for their addiction is absolutely not going to deter them; on the contrary all it does is push them further and further to the margins. That marginalisation, particularly among neglected communities and which is often multigenerational, is very often what fuels drug use in the first place. We need a genuine health-led approach, one that prioritises harm reduction and recovery, and supports people out of addiction. The World Health Organization now favours decriminalisation of people who use drugs. Ultimately this is a sensible approach. It is the effective approach.”
“I suppose it could depend on a person's views of the outcomes we hope to achieve in our response to drug use and addiction, but our criminal justice approach has been indicative of a State and, if we are honest, a society that for a long time would prefer not to acknowledge the dignity and the humanity of those who have unfortunately found themselves dependent on drugs. It has allowed us to brush the issue under the rug and forget about them. However, drug use is so prevalent now that it has become difficult for people to ignore. It is in every town and village across the country, as we have heard. It is in every community, every workplace, every family and every club. To criminalise drug use is to completely misunderstand the nature of addiction.”
“It is important that these task forces and the projects they are involved in continue to get the funding they need over the coming years. As others have said our motion today is not even about drugs. At its heart this is a motion about people, vulnerable people, marginalised people and people who are sick, and the value we place on their lives or more accurately the lack of value because if we truly valued the lives of people suffering from addiction, we would have changed our approach long ago. Dealing with the issue of addiction and drugs solely through the criminal justice system has not worked. I do not think anyone in this House would argue with that.”
“Decriminalisation is an issue that the Labour Party and my colleagues have been raising consistently over a number of years. I am proud to be in a party that has been pushing consistently for reform of our societal attitudes to drug use, from Pat Rabbitte 30 years ago establishing the drug and alcohol task forces around the country to the steadfast leadership of Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, now our MEP for Dublin, when it has come to the issue of decriminalisation. I pay tribute to the Tallaght drugs and alcohol task force. I am consistently bowled over by the tremendous work it does on the ground in Dublin South-West, from Tallaght to Whitechurch, in terms of prevention, support outreach and the innovative approaches it takes involving youth work. There is a Connect 4 project in the area that I am particularly impressed with.”
“That means stronger oversight, explicit and robust consumer protection and respect for the environment. That also means a clear, enforceable plan for managing industrial electricity demand, particularly from data centres. If we make these changes, this Bill can become a cornerstone of a just, resilient and sustainable energy future. If we do not, we risk locking ourselves into a model that is unfair, unsustainable and politically untenable.”
“This is something I will raise with the Minister for justice and pursue separately. This Bill has merit. It recognises real challenges and it provides a framework for investment that Ireland desperately needs, but legislation of this magnitude should be judged not only by what it enables, but what it neglects. We need to ensure balance between public and private interest, between environmental protection and infrastructure speed, between affordability and ambition and between power for profit and power for people. This Bill will shape our grid for decades to come, so let us not build a grid that serves Silicon Valley better than the homes of counties Dublin, Clare or Donegal. We must build a system that delivers clean, reliable and affordable electricity for every household, every business and every community in Ireland.”
“It turns out that the limit in the 1954 Act was amended again and increased to €12 billion under section 22 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act (Amendment) 2021. All I am saying is that, as legislators, we should be able to focus our efforts on looking exactly at the substance of changes to our laws, but we cannot be sure exactly what our existing laws are saying in the first place because they are made up of this mishmash of amendments that have been passed over 70 years. This needs to be made clearer for us as legislators. Aside from us, ordinary citizens should be entitled to see easily and in an accessible and transparent manner what our laws actually are and what their right and entitlements are. This in so many respects is an access to justice matter. There is a need for reform in how we publish our laws.”
“Every Department when proposing amendments to existing legislation should at least provide legislators with that Department’s unofficial consolidated versions of Acts so that we can fully and fairly scrutinise them. I will provide one small example. The explanatory memorandum states this Bill will amend section 4(4) of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1954, which sets the ESB’s borrowing limit. We are told that this limit is being changed from €12 billion to €17 billion. All of this fine, but the limit set under section 4 in 1954 was £25 million. This was amended by a 1982 amendment Act to a limit of £1.6 billion, but how did it get to the limit of €12 billion? Where do I see that so I know that it is changing?”
“The Law Reform Commission, as the Ministers of State might know, does great work in consolidating a lot of our laws, but its resources are limited and it does not provide a consolidated version of the electricity supply Acts. Ideally, all of our legislation would be published in a consolidated format rather than leaving it up to individuals to piece together amendments that may have be enacted separately, sometimes over decades, to understand the current state of the law. The Government should publish consolidated laws for everyone’s benefit, as is done in the UK. It is extremely difficult, even for someone like me who is legally trained, to decipher which parts of an amended Act are being changed for the purposes of reviewing and analysing this legislation.”
“It must be capable of real time balancing, integrating distributed renewable generation and enabling households and communities to produce and store their own electricity. If this Bill becomes only a programme of steel and concrete, with more poles, lines and substations without a parallel investment in smart technology, we will have built yesterday’s grid for tomorrow’s challenges. There is one other matter I wish to raise. This is more of a procedural matter rather than one relating to the substance of the Bill. It is an insight into how I spent my Sunday night. It is about the lack of a consolidated version of this legislation.”
“Targets alone do not deliver progress, however, as we are all too aware. We know from recent experience that large infrastructure programmes often face cost overruns, planning delays and procurement challenges. Global supply chains remain fragile and skilled electrical engineers are in short supply across Europe. If the ESB cannot deliver these works on time and within budget, the benefits to consumers and renewables developers will be delayed and the costs will inevitably rise. It would be prudent if annual delivery plans were required and perhaps an independent mid-term review in, say, 2028 to assess whether the investment programme is meeting its objectives and to allow for adjustments if it is not. Beyond delivery, we need to ensure we are building the right kind of grid. The 21st century grid must be smarter, not merely bigger.”
“If they use disproportionately more energy, they should pay proportionally more. That is basic fairness. Furthermore, we should be looking at the wider planning framework. I am yet to be convinced that the national energy demand strategy is robust enough in setting out clear criteria for where and how high-energy use facilities can connect. We are essentially building infrastructure blindly without any demand side governance. If we continue on the current path, yes, we might end up with a grid that is stronger but it will be one that is more unequal, carbon intensive and dependent on the very industries that make decarbonisation harder. I wish to touch on the issue of delivery. The targets are laudable, such as 50,000 pole replacements, 319 km of new underground cables and 70 new or upgraded substations.”
“That being the case, new or expanding data centres should be able to demonstrate access to renewable, self-generated power sufficient to meet their operational load. I have drafted a Bill, which I intend to introduce shortly, to give effect to such a provision. We should also be looking at requirements for all large energy users to participate in demand response programmes, installing on-site storage or flexibility technologies to ease strain on the grid. In addition, we need to explore the introduction of a large-user capacity levy, earmarked specifically to offset household and small business network costs. In our alternative budget, the Labour Party proposed a levy of €20 per MWh on data centres, which would raise over €140 million, and a reform of the PSO to ensure they contribute equitably.”
“It is simply not a sustainable solution. Let us be honest: the bulk of this €1.5 billion investment will go towards meeting the needs of large energy users, not households. Yet, the costs are socialised across all consumers. That is not sustainable or fair. If we are serious about a just energy transition, we cannot ignore the imbalance created by this sector. We have to ensure that large-scale users contribute proportionality to the infrastructure costs they generate. The de facto moratorium on new data centre connections in the Dublin region, introduced in 2021, was a necessary stopgap and should be introduced nationally. We in the Labour Party have consistently called for a moratorium on all new data centres but clearly the Government intends on ploughing ahead and green lighting more and more of them.”
“Data centres operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The consumption is constant and inflexible. It does not dip when the wind stops blowing or shift when the grid is strained. The result is immense pressure on network infrastructure, particularly in the east of the country where these facilities are concentrated. Dublin, already one of the most data centre-dense cities in Europe, is approaching the limits of its transmission capacity. That congestion means a couple of things. First, renewable projects elsewhere struggle to connect because capacity is consumed by non-flexible industrial demand. Second, ordinary consumers face higher costs as new infrastructure is built primarily to serve that demand. When data centres disconnect from the grid and use their own back-up generation, this back-up is almost always fossil fuel-powered.”
“As with all matters relating to our energy supply and national grid, perhaps the most urgent issue, and the elephant in the room, is data centres. This Bill completely ignores the single biggest driver of electricity demand growth in Ireland today. It is silent on the issue of data centres despite the fact that their impact is overwhelming the very grid this Bill seeks to reinforce. That is pretty unbelievable. Last year, data centres accounted for 22% of Ireland’s entire electricity supply. EirGird projections suggest that, without intervention, this figure could rise to 30% by 2030. To put that into perspective, one sector, serving a few dozen multinational corporations, could soon consume nearly one third of our national electricity output. This is not demand that can easily be curtailed.”
“That position might be unique to the CRU as a regulator in terms of the compliance obligations it can impose on third parties, or there may be similar problems with the enforceability of the climate change objectives as it applies to other State agencies and bodies. I hope this is something the Minister will check. In any case, given the salience of decarbonising our energy system in our fight against climate disaster, there should be the strongest obligations on the ESB to live up to its requirements under the climate Acts. I tabled an amendment to that effect but unfortunately, it has been ruled out of order. Nonetheless, I will reiterate that the ESB’s paramount consideration must be the performance of its functions in a manner consistent with the climate Act.”
“It is worth pointing out that under the Climate Action and Law Carbon Development Act 2015 and the Climate Action and Law Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, the ESB, as a public body, is required to perform its functions in a manner consistent with our statutory climate objectives. However, in a position paper back in February, the CRU reported its opinion that the current provisions under the climate action Act do not provide a sufficient legal basis to allow it to explicitly mandate specific emissions reductions and offsetting measures, such as requiring that connection applicants put in place arrangements to ensure that emissions associated with the demand connection are fully abated from the time of that connection or on a set trajectory.”
“Which will be prioritised? On what basis? Who decides? How will we in the Dáil be informed if projects go over budget or fall behind schedule? We have seen in other instances, like the new national children’s hospital, that we only learn of budget overruns and delays because they appear in the headlines. The Bill should, and could, include a new statutory duty on ESB Networks to provide quarterly performances reports to the Minister and the relevant Oireachtas committee outlining progress, expenditure and projected completion dates for all major works above a certain value. That is the level of transparency the public deserves when billions of euro in public money are at stake. Any investment in our energy network and systems going forward must have decarbonisation and sustainability as its foremost considerations.”
“There are also the issues of accountability and oversight, or the lack thereof, in the Bill. The Bill substantially increases the ESB’s borrowing powers but adds no new reporting requirements. That is not particularly good legislative practice. If a private company raised its debt ceiling by €5 billion, shareholders would demand rigorous scrutiny, yet here the shareholders, so to speak – the people of Ireland – are being asked to sign a cheque and just hope for the best. We need clear lines of accountability that could include annual reporting to the Oireachtas, for example, not necessarily just vague assurances from press releases. We need independent audit mechanisms that track project performance, delivery timelines and cost efficiency. There are over 500 capital projects planned under the investment programme.”
“Under section 21 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act, which established the ESB, the ESB’s obligation was to charge at “such rates and on such scales that the revenue derived in any year by the Board from such sales and services together with its revenue (if any) in such year from other sources will be sufficient and only sufficient (as nearly as may be) to pay all salaries, working expenses, and other outgoings of the Board properly chargeable to income in that year”. In other words, the original mandate of the ESB was non-commercial, and it remained so for over 70 years. That provision was repealed by section 9 of the 2001 Act, which gave the ESB its commercial mandate. Can anyone really argue that there has been a step-change improvement for customers as a result of this commercialisation?”
“More broadly on the issue of consumer costs, we need to seriously consider ways of reining in energy companies and rethinking the deregulation of the energy markets. I have spoken about this previously. There are ways of going about it, such as carve-outs and EU rules, that I have outlined in this House previously. The ESB is in a somewhat unique position given it is a State asset and a former monopoly provider.”
“They are not getting cheaper electricity, at least not in the short term. They are being asked to fund long-term infrastructure that will primarily enable new industrial and commercial growth. At a time of record energy poverty, where over a quarter of households have fallen into arrears in the past two years, that is deeply problematic. A modern electricity system must be just as well as sustainable. We need to consider establishing more explicit consumer-protection mechanisms that may include, for example, mandating the CRU to publish an annual affordability impact statement outlining the cost effects of this investment and requiring measures to offset any regressive impacts.”
“Billions in new borrowing and billions more for capital works are required, yet nowhere in the Bill or its accompanying documentation does the Government specify what this means for the ordinary household’s electricity bill. The Department’s press statements refer to competitive borrowing rates and long-term benefits but, in plain English, that means the ESB will take on more debt, and that debt will ultimately be serviced through network charges – charges paid by households, schools, businesses, hospitals and so on. Some analysis has suggested that the proposed upgrades could increase bills by approximately €80 per household per year. That may sound modest to some, but for families already having to choose between heating and eating, it is not so modest at all. What are households getting for the extra charge?”
“In principle, we also support the aim of giving ESB Networks the financial capacity to invest at scale. Grid constraints are now one of the biggest barriers to renewable energy projects. Developers of wind and solar farms across the country are waiting years for connections because of bottlenecks. Without new investment, Ireland will simply not meet its renewable electricity targets for 2030. The Bill is timely and motivated by legitimate needs and recognises that grid infrastructure is essential to the green transition. However, a Bill that controls billions of euro in public funds should also control how that money is used, who benefits and what kind of system it builds for the future. On that front, the Bill is somewhat incomplete. First, there is the question of cost. This Bill involves investment at an enormous scale.”
“By increasing ESB’s borrowing limit and providing direct equity from the State, this Bill allows essential investments in transmission and distribution. That must include the construction of new substations, the upgrading of lines and the replacement of tens of thousands of poles and cables. It is not necessarily the most glamorous of work but it is critical to keeping our energy system reliable. I believe we will have separate legislation dealing with storm resilience. After Storm Éowyn, when over 750,000 customers lost power, it became clear that we could not continue to rely on a brittle network, dominated by overhead lines. I know we are not necessarily dealing with that issue today, but provisions for better vegetation management, undergrounding key lines and improving emergency-response capacity will be welcome and are necessary.”
“By 2030, Ireland’s total demand could rise by as much as 40%, driven by the electrification of heat and transport, population growth and, as I will emphasise later, the astonishing surge in data-centre consumption. This is not a minor technical amendment; it is a strategic investment Bill that will determine where the State places its financial and infrastructural priorities for the rest of this decade. Therefore, it deserves a high level of scrutiny. I will begin with the positive elements. The Bill is an acknowledgement that our electricity grid is under severe strain. Much of our network was designed for a very different era, namely, one of predictable demand and centralised generation. Today, we have decentralised renewables, fluctuating generation and new kinds of load. Our grid was never built for this complexity.”
“The Government’s stated aim is to provide the legal and financial framework for upgrading and reinforcing Ireland’s electricity network to support the roll-out of generation, new housing, electric vehicles and climate adaptation works, particularly to ensure resilience against storms and other severe weather events. We have seen the huge damage that storms have caused in recent years. Quite frankly, we were not prepared for them. They have been hugely disruptive, particularly in the case of Storm Éowyn. As we all know, lives have tragically been lost in recent memory. All this is happening at a time when electricity demand is growing rapidly.”
“However, the Bill also has serious gaps in oversight, fairness, environmental protection and, crucially, managing the enormous energy demands from data centres that we need to address. I will return to those topics. The Bill amends the 1954 Act to give ESB Networks greater borrowing and investment capacity, increasing the statutory borrowing limit from €12 billion to €17 billion. It also authorises €1.5 billion in direct Government equity investment over the next five years, between 2026 and 2030, which is of course very welcome.”
“Ireland’s energy landscape is being reshaped more dramatically now than at any point in our history, or at least since the ESB was established. We are living through a profound transition, trying to decarbonise our electricity system, at a time when the UN is saying we are on track to miss our target of limiting the rise in the global temperature by 1.5°C. We are trying to decarbonise while electrifying heating and transport and integrating massive new volumes of renewable generation, all while maintaining security of supply and trying to ensure sustainability and affordability for Irish households are paramount. This is no small task, and in that context this Bill has an important role.”
“I congratulate our former colleague Catherine Connolly on her inspiring win after her presidential campaign. I wish her all the very best in her upcoming term as Uachtarán na hÉireann and our tenth President. I welcome the opportunity to speak about this Bill. It is one of significant consequence, not only for our energy system but also for our economy, environment, society and country more broadly. It deals with one of the most crucial challenges we face now and in the near future, namely, how we generate, deliver and pay for the energy that powers our homes, schools, hospitals, businesses and industries. How do we keep the lights on, and how do we do so in a fair and sustainable manner that ensures affordability for Irish consumers?”
“I hope everyone, despite any misgivings about the process or the choice of candidates on the ballot this week, comes out to exercise their franchise, raise their voice and vote on Friday in this pivotal presidential election.”
“The Labour Party will not be supporting the motion on the basis of those aspects that I have outlined, but we do not oppose the essence of the motion, which seeks to extend the voting franchise to citizens in the North and look at ways to ensure a diversity of candidates. That is something we should all be able to agree on. I thank Deputies Tóibín and Lawless for giving us the opportunity to reflect on our electoral system this week and renew our commitment to bringing forward a referendum. Citizens in the North have now waited 12 years and counting since the Convention on the Constitution's recommendation to allow them a franchise. It is time to deliver for them. It is vital we continue to value the Office of Uachtarán na hÉireann.”