Conor Murphy
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“Given the complex legal issues the appeals would involve, such as the interaction of legal residency, habitual residency and social housing support, it would have been better to have one single, independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency, similar to how social welfare operates.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 16, after line 39, to insert the following: “(i) the household or members of the household were refused access to emergency homeless accommodation provided under Section 10 of the Housing Act 1988”. I will speak to amendment Nos. 16 and 17.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 17, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute the following: “(6) A social housing appeal shall be made to an independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency within 28 days of the notification by the housing authority to the household concerned of the making of a determination in respect of the…”
“In relation to this Bill, the amendment seeks that the habitual residence conditions do not act as a barrier to those who have perhaps not worked here or have been resident here but have worked away for all of their lives and do not have a history of paying into the State or have a history of employment here but are Irish residents but pe…”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(5) Within twelve months of the commencement of this Bill the Minister for Housing shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of Part 2 of the Bill for returning Irish migrants, and in particular those Irish citizens returni…”
“The intentions behind this Bill may well have been good but the delivery of it has left a lot to be desired. One of the issues that came up during dialogue has nothing to do with migrants but concerns people from Ireland who have been working away abroad all of their lives and with to come home to retire.”
The complete record
Every one of 447 lines we hold for Conor Murphy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“It is regrettable that none of them were accepted and that no mechanism has been found to deal with this. Nonetheless, it is important that we register our concerns on these issues.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 17, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute the following: “(6) A social housing appeal shall be made to an independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency within 28 days of the notification by the housing authority to the household concerned of the making of a determination in respect of the application or reassessment for social housing support concerned under section 20.”. This amendment reflects the same issue in relation to appeals and the independence of the appeals mechanism. There is a strong concern about a lack of independence within the appeals mechanism proposed, and the amendment has been proposed to try to deal with the issue. Many of these issues were raised and aired substantially during the Dáil debate.”
“I move amendment No. 17: In page 16, after line 39, to insert the following: “(i) the household or members of the household were removed from emergency homeless accommodation provided under Section 10 of the Housing Act 1988”.”
“The purpose of amendments Nos. 16 and 17 is to extend the right to appeal to people denied emergency accommodation. As I said, there are some parts of this Bill that we are able to support but, overall, we cannot support the Bill in front of us.”
“Given the complex legal issues the appeals would involve, such as the interaction of legal residency, habitual residency and social housing support, it would have been better to have one single, independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency, similar to how social welfare operates. The Minister also introduced significant changes to the Housing Act 1988 relating to homelessness on Report Stage with virtually no scrutiny. As others have said, homelessness NGOs and human rights organisations have expressed serious concerns with regard to these last-minute changes, saying they could lead to an increase in rough sleeping. We are also concerned that while people may have an entitlement to emergency accommodation, they could be wrongly denied access to it and will not be afforded the right to an appeal.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 16, after line 39, to insert the following: “(i) the household or members of the household were refused access to emergency homeless accommodation provided under Section 10 of the Housing Act 1988”. I will speak to amendment Nos. 16 and 17. The overall aim of this Bill, as has been asserted by the Minister, is to take the current eligibility criteria for social housing and put them on a statutory footing, creating a new appeals mechanism for those refused access to social housing. We are not against this Bill in principle. However, a mess has been made of it with regard to the legislation and on that basis, we cannot support it. The Bill does not adequately address challenges facing returning migrants. The appeals mechanism is not independent.”
“This amendment seeks a report be done on this issue to ensure the habitual residence conditions do not act as a barrier to Irish citizens being able to reside here. It has nothing to do with other migrants who come here. That is a different process altogether and one that has to be operated in a fair and transparent way by the Government. This specifically relates to these people who are Irish citizens and who have been abroad for many years.”
“In relation to this Bill, the amendment seeks that the habitual residence conditions do not act as a barrier to those who have perhaps not worked here or have been resident here but have worked away for all of their lives and do not have a history of paying into the State or have a history of employment here but are Irish residents but perhaps do not have an address to come back to, that they do not find themselves falling foul of this. I know from my own experience over the years of dealing with people like the Irish in Britain, the challenges that face people who have gone over there as teenagers and have worked all of their lives and in their twilight years want to come home to set up back here and live out their remaining days in their home country.”
“The intentions behind this Bill may well have been good but the delivery of it has left a lot to be desired. One of the issues that came up during dialogue has nothing to do with migrants but concerns people from Ireland who have been working away abroad all of their lives and with to come home to retire. It concerns this issue of habitual residence and I can tell the Minister I have personal experience across a range of issues from living North of the Border where habitual residence frequently frustrates people who are Irish citizens living on this island from having access to certain Government services.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(5) Within twelve months of the commencement of this Bill the Minister for Housing shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of Part 2 of the Bill for returning Irish migrants, and in particular those Irish citizens returning to live in Ireland following extended periods of residence in other jurisdictions to ensure that the operation of the habitual residence conditions do not act as a barrier to Irish citizens being abled to reside within the state as access social housing support subject to the eligibility conditions set out in the Housing Acts.”. This amendment seeks to ask the Minister to bring back a report on this issue.”
“I move amendment No. 12: In page 16, line 17, to delete "Board." and substitute "Board, and, insofar as practicable, shall ensure the recommended persons collectively possess expertise and experience in— (a) artificial intelligence and computer science, (b) human rights and equality law, (c) trade union and worker’s rights matters, (d) consumer protection, and (e) civil society engagement”.”
“That is essential both to ensure the genuine independence of the new AI office and effective regulation. It is an amendment aimed at strengthening the board. Our concerns remain about the relationship between the Minister and the board and the sense of genuine independence. We want effective measures in place. There are enormous opportunities with AI, but there are also enormous challenges and potential difficulties. We need to ensure that this country is not just a centre of tech companies but also a centre of regulation to ensure that we lead from the front in this regard. Our amendment is an attempt to strengthen that position in relation to the board.”
“That is always a danger when legislation is pressurised and rushed through so quickly, particularly in an area of such importance, one that has significant implications for people, as well as the running of this State and the various devices that the Government will use. The implications of the issues around the Minister, ministerial directions and the independence of a board still leave us with significant concerns. We submitted amendment No. 12 to try to strengthen the calibre of the people on the board, and I have no doubt that good people will be sought for it. However, in relation to things like human rights, equality law, trade unions, workers' rights, consumer protection and civil society, we want to ensure there is a broad representation on the board.”
“I want to begin by acknowledging the letter from the Minister of State in relation to some of the points that I raised on Second Stage. I note the time pressure in relation to this so that it can take effect by 2 August. I also take some heart from her comments that there will be a phased approach to the implementation of the AI Act, and that it will be open to further measures as part of this work. The number of amendments we are dealing with today highlights that there is a lot of work to be done in relation to this, even with the timeframe. I do not believe that we, as Senators, are getting sufficient opportunity to go through this in detail, to scrutinise and to try to bring some more issues to bear in relation to the Bill.”
“I congratulate her and I thank all of the organisations, North and South, that work in this area across Ireland. It is hugely important not just for those who suffer from cancer, but for their families, who try to assist them.”
“I will be brief because I spoke on the previous Bill when a different Minister of State was here. I acknowledge the work that was done on this and the engagement with all of the organisations to make sure that everybody was comfortable with where we were going. People have said that cancer strikes every family in Ireland. My own family can be included in that. This was an injustice for those who could not avail of services and opportunities because of the treatment they have had. Anything we do in this space is about addressing that injustice. It takes somebody to pick up the baton, run with it and drive it through. I congratulate the Minister of State on the work that has been done. It is very appropriate that she is here to see it through to its final conclusion.”
“Recommendation No. 3 seeks to delete all future carbon tax increases on liquid fuel and diesel, for example. For reasons already outlined, the Government should not increase carbon taxes at this point in time. Recommendation No. 4 proposes that the rate of mineral oil tax will increase on 1 September, 1 October, 1 November and 1 December, in addition to a budgetary increase on 14 October. Families and businesses are already crippled with the cost of everything constantly going up. The Government has the power to help and this legislation should not be enacted.”
“If this Government had imagination and listened to ordinary people, it would know that punitive tax increases such as these do one thing, that being, force people into deprivation and keep the poorest houses cold. On recommendation No. 2, the Government typically increases the price of home heating oil, natural gas and solid fuels in May every year and the price of motor fuel in October. Our recommendation would delete all further increases in carbon tax that the Government has outlined from now until May 2030. Our proposition would leave the existing levels in place until this coming October, when they should be reviewed. This will be the right course of action at a time when the weather will be getting colder and people must heat their homes. People are crippled with the cost of living and these fuel rebates must be kept in place.”
“Everybody else would also benefit, including all of those commuters, etc., fill up their cars with petrol or diesel. In addition, it avoids the cash-flow issues that the rebate scheme has ingrained within it. This recommendation proposes the postponement of the increases in carbon taxes on home heating oil, green diesel and canister gas until October. For months, the Taoiseach ruled this out. While people endured the worst cost-of-living crisis in memory, the Taoiseach stood resolute. Sinn Féin has always opposed increasing carbon taxes. They are unfair and do nothing for the climate or the environment while alternatives do not exist or are unaffordable. A further increase in this tax punishes those who are already struggling - workers, families and people with disabilities - without giving them an alternative.”
“It could raise money in other ways and leave the fuel rebate in place. It could have taxed the banks but is more than happy to let the financial crash loophole remain in place, meaning that the banks continue to carry forward losses from 2008 when the economy crashed and offset them against their current booming profits. Even the measures which were introduced in April were hard to access. Many hauliers reported difficulties arising from the three-month wait for the rebate. Deputy Doherty has raised this with the Government numerous times, but we see no willingness to be agile on its part. If the Government had made the cut directly at the pump, hauliers would get the benefit immediately and would not have to wait three months for it.”
“Last year, Barnardo’s back-to-school cost report outlined everything parents were expected to cover, from school shoes through to voluntary contributions, classroom resources and on and on. It adds up to hundreds of euro per child. The Zurich cost-of-education report published this year found costs of over €1,700 a year for a primary school child while secondary school education costs €3,000 per annum per child. Just yesterday, online shopping charges of €3 per item for parcels and packages originating outside the European Union came into effect. At a time when people are under serious pressure as a result of the cost of living, the last thing they need is another unexpected charge. Ireland is uniquely exposed because of online shopping and how it is integrated with Britain. The Government could have chosen to support people.”
“I move recommendation No. 2: In page 6, to delete lines 1 to 22 and substitute the following: 15 July 2026 €502.88 €502.88 €371.85 €371.85 €371.85 €0.00 €210.45 €172.14 €167.25 €79.17 €11.48 14 October 2026 €706.14 €706.14 €615.76 €615.76 €615.76 €160.81 €210.45 €219.50 €167.25 €103.66 €11.48 Many families across the State are rightly appalled by the Government’s decision to withdraw the fuel tax cuts that were introduced most reluctantly in April. The decision may not make much of a difference to the Government but for ordinary people, increases in petrol and diesel in September, October, November and December will make a significant impact on their quality of life. September through to Christmas is already a very expensive time for people.”
“We might have different views on how that might come about or decided; that is a matter for Committee Stage of this Bill. I have been very heartened by the fact that there is a very strong desire to see this necessary work begin in the here and now. I sincerely hope that that is reflected in the approach to the debate tonight and that we get this legislation through its Second Stage. Let us then go into Committee and determine how we would bring this work forward.”
“There really is a desire north of the Border to get ourselves out of this situation to form something which is completely new in a stable situation where we can actually determine our own future and not have it determined as a consequence of other people's interests and actions. This is really all about preparation, dialogue and engagement. A necessary part of this will also be engagement with the British Government because that dialogue needs to begin now. The still unfolding chaos from Brexit in Britain could lead to even more erratic governments in the future, so that engagement needs to happen now. We have engaged with all parties across the Oireachtas in the last number of weeks. We have had some very positive feedback from people. Obviously, all of the parties represented here subscribe to the idea of Irish unity.”
“The second thing the Bill would do would be to provide for the Government to establish a citizens assembly that would give the citizens of Ireland, members of the diaspora and, in particular, those in Ireland who are of a Protestant-unionist identity or a British identity the opportunity to engage formally with this process in order to ensure that their voices are heard. In the almost 30 years since the Good Friday Agreement happened, the political landscape changed and changed utterly. We in the North now have a nationalist, republican First Minister in a state where it was determined that that would never happen. In Britain there are pro-independence First Ministers in Scotland and Wales. We have had the Brexit chaos and we are now heading for a seventh Prime Minister in ten years.”
“The practical next step is the legislation to which I refer, which essentially calls for two things. The first is for the Government to prepare a Green Paper on reunification. The process for doing so should take about 18 months. This would allow the Government to put together the resources to do all of the work necessary and set out its ideas about how reunification would happen and how various compelling questions in the debate on this matter, which is already happening all over Ireland, would be answered by the Government.”
“I would like to speak about a Bill that is due to be debated in the Dáil later. The Bill in question relates to preparations for reunification and follows on from a report of the Good Friday Agreement committee in October 2024, less than two years ago, in which all parties agreed that the Government should take the necessary steps to begin the preparatory work that would obviously be required before a referendum is held. It is in all of our interests to make sure that the process towards reunification is democratic, stable and smooth, with the maximum amount of information for those who will be voting. The Bill also follows on from motions which were debated in this Chamber and the Dáil and which, again, were supported by parties supported.”
“I emphasise that regulation of AI would be better done on an all-island basis. I ask the Minister of State to engage with agencies in the North in the time ahead.”
“The Oireachtas AI committee has been clear that the EU AI Act must be treated as the minimum, not the ceiling. AI development moves far faster than legislation; the Government must be able to respond swiftly to emerging risks. We must protect our democracy to ensure false narratives do not dominate and bot armies do not sabotage democratic discussion online. We must never see a repeat of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, when personal data belonging to 87 million Facebook users was collected by the company for political advertising without informed consent. Tech companies and the applications they build are not neutral; they are designed to make someone a profit. It is the job of the Oireachtas to ensure citizens are not harmed in that process. I look forward to seeing the work of the AI office, which the Bill legislates for.”
“We know bot armies and AI-generated content are used to manufacture the appearance of grassroots sentiment and trained to flood comment sections and drown out dissenting voices. It is obvious there needs to be regulation in this space. Social media companies should be held accountable and responsible for what is on their platforms. Self-regulation is no regulation. Unfortunately, the Government approach to online safety has been piecemeal and weak. The Bill introduces strident enforcement powers including contravention notices requiring compliance, withdrawal or destruction of AI systems, but it will be the implementation of the legislation that will have the real impact. It will be prudent for the Minister of State to ensure regular performance monitoring takes place.”
“Research by Trademark, an independent social justice organisation based in Belfast, found that 90% of digital infrastructure is controlled by six tech companies. That means the critical infrastructure of the Internet - search engines, cloud storage and communications networks - are owned by private companies accountable only to their shareholders. It is important we see social media platforms for what they are: not neutral spaces, but sophisticated influence systems shaped by algorithms which amplify inflammatory and right-wing content because outrage drives user interaction and interaction generates advertising revenue. Many of us in this Chamber will have experience of being targeted online by faceless accounts.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. This is an important piece of legislation and is clearly central to establishing the institutions, powers and penalties required to implement the EU AI Act. Under that Act, Ireland is required to have a working regulatory framework in place by 2 August. While this legislation will ensure compliance, it does not alone ensure protection for citizens from the harmful effects of artificial intelligence. There are opportunities for improvement across many aspects of the Bill. Sinn Féin has tabled amendments in the Dáil and will consider the same in this House. We recognise the potential of AI - possibly improved healthcare outcomes, enhanced productivity, better data analytics and automation of repetitive tasks - but we are equally aware of AI's profound capacity for harm.”
“For the purposes of this Part, a person organises or facilitates travel for the purpose of participation in the armed forces of another state which is engaged in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes— (a) if he or she— (i) does any act— (I) consisting of the making of an arrangement for the travel by any person to the State from a place other than the State, or (II) that would facilitate the travel by any person to the State from a place other than the State, or (ii) causes any person to do such an act, knowing that such travel is for a purpose referred to in section 4F, or (b) if he or she— (i) does any act— (I) consisting of the making of an arrangement for the travel by any person from the State to a place other than the State, or (II) that would facilitate the travel by any person from the State to a place other than the State, or (ii) causes any person to do such an act, knowing that such travel is for a purpose referred to in section 4F.”.”.”
“I move amendment No. 18: In page 9, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Organising or facilitating travel for purpose of participation in the armed forces of another state which is engaged in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes 4F.”
“I move amendment No. 17: In page 9, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Travel for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide 4F. For the purposes of this Part, a person travels for the purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide if he or she travels from the State to a place other than the State for the purpose of participation in the armed forces of another state which is engaged in, or is reasonably suspected of having engaged in, genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.”.”.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 9, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Recruitment for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide 4F. For the purposes of this Part, recruitment for the purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide means the intentional recruitment of another person to serve in the armed forces of a state which is engaged in, or is reasonably suspected of having engaged in, a war crime, a crime against humanity or genocide.”.”.”
“(2) The Minister may, if he or she considers it appropriate to do so, make regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) and he or she shall— (a) before making such regulations, consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence, the Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, and such other Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate having regard to the weapons, substances, techniques or methods concerned, and (b) in making such regulations, have regard to the following: (i) the capability of the weapon, substance, technique or method concerned to cause death or serious bodily injury to persons or substantial material damage to property; (ii) the capacity of the weapon, substance, technique or method concerned to be used for the purposes of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide and the likelihood of it being so used; (iii) the extent to which instruction or training— (I) in the making or use of the weapon or substance concerned, or (II) in the use of the technique or method concerned, is required for the making or use, as the case may be, of that weapon, substance, technique or method for the purpose of committing, or contributing to the commission of, a war crime, a crime against humanity or genocide.”.”.”
“(1) For the purposes of this Part, training in the armed forces of a state engaged in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide means intentionally providing instruction or training in the skills of— (a) making or using, for the purpose of committing, or contributing to, the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide— (i) firearms or explosives, (ii) nuclear material, (iii) biological weapons, chemical weapons or prohibited weapons, or (iv) such other weapons, or noxious or hazardous substances, that may be used in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide as the Minister may prescribe, or (b) such other techniques or methods for the purpose of committing, or contributing to the commission of, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide as the Minister may prescribe, knowing or believing that it is likely that the skills provided are intended to be used by a person receiving the instruction or training for the purpose of committing, or contributing to the commission of, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.”
“I move amendment No. 15: In page 9, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Training for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide 4F.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(j) organising or facilitating travel for the purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, (k) providing training in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, (l) receiving training in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, (m) recruitment for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, or (n) travel for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide;”,”.”
“We have seen the figures in relation to some of the people who have been protesting. The assurances that the provisions will not be misused in any way do not really give me any confidence. While the Minister and her current partners in Government may be well intentioned, we have no sense of how these provisions will be used in future. We can see very clearly how such powers are being used in other countries. The section smacks of an attempt to crack down on freedom of speech rather than terrorist activities. That can be seen across Europe, particularly with regard to the Middle East, in the approach of states like Germany and France to legitimate protest as opposed to their approach to pursuing people on the far right who are creating difficulties. The section should be opposed. The provisions smack of authoritarianism.”
“As was said when this Bill was discussed previously in the Dáil, it is very probable that putting up a poster of Bobby Sands or Nelson Mandela in the 1980s could have been construed as glorifying terrorism. This legislation parrots some of the language of the far right, especially the language of the DUP in the North, in relation to the glorification of terrorism. We are led into territory where commemoration or celebration of the 1916 Rising, wearing a lily or the legitimate commemoration of loved ones killed during the conflict in the North could fall under the provisions of this Bill. This takes place against the backdrop of debate across Britain, Europe and America regarding legislation against legitimate protest, including protest in relation to Palestine. We cannot ignore that context.”
“We are yet to hear a credible rationale for this broadening. As I have said, it is a cause of serious concern, particularly in relation to the glorification of terrorism, but also as a result of its general vagueness and the broadness of the language, which will be wide open to misuse and to suppress freedom of speech. The provisions are too broad and are open to abuse. Public provocation charges can be brought where no terrorist offence has been committed, with those charged facing up to ten years in prison. Again, the provisions are so broad that people could be found guilty of a terrorism offence in relation to provocation where they distribute or publish a message that could reasonably be construed as inciting terrorism or glorifying terrorist activity. That includes praise and celebration.”
“That shows how such laws are applied where a government wants to shut down protests it considers to be embarrassing in light of its international relationships. This has moved clearly and evidently towards something that is completely ludicrous. Elderly people who are genuinely, legitimately, deservedly and with some merit protesting against genocide are treated in such a way under laws that are not directly related to this one but that have a similar theme. There can be unintended consequences in how these things are interpreted and in how particular governments might propose to approach them. A significant problem with this Bill is the widening of the definition of "provocation of terrorism" contained in section 3. We will be opposing this section. It is our view that this expansion of the definition is deeply problematic.”
“I move amendment No. 7: In page 5, to delete line 17. This section raises very significant concerns. We only have to look to our near neighbours in Britain to see where issues have arisen with protests. Some time ago, the Minister of State spoke about her own views regarding some of what has been going on in the Middle East, Palestine and Lebanon and her opposition to all of that. We can see how the definition of "glorification of terrorism" has been open to abuse. In Britain, 3,500 people who have declared themselves in support of Palestine Action have been arrested in recent times. Some 80% of these are pensioners. Despite this, something like 35 people have been arrested as the result of race riots and racist violence.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “ ‘travel for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide’ shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;”.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “ ‘recruitment for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide’ shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;”.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “ ‘receiving training in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide’ shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;”.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “ ‘providing training in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide’ shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;”.”
“There has been a distinct lack of action against any of the people involved in the genocide on the ground, and especially those who planned, led and advocated for it, in relation to their treatment in various European countries.”