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 3 of 9.
“I move amendment No. 22: In page 10, after line 36, to insert the following: “Questioning of designated person by or on behalf of Chairman 10 . (1) Upon completion of the examination of a designated person by the nominated judge ask questions of the designated person.”
“This amendment ensures examinations are fair, thorough and are not restricted to pre-set questions, allowing the judge to pursue relevant documents, follow-up queries and full evidence for the inquiry’s work. The amendment gives a nominated judge the explicit authority to present relevant documents and pursue follow-up questions within defined topics. The purpose of this amendment is to enable effective and responsible examination, which is something representatives of the families in particular want to see. Amendment No. 22 allows the chair or counsel on their behalf to question a witness after the judge’s examination probing any matters arising from the evidence. It permits follow-up questions, use of documents and exploration of inconsistencies while keeping all questioning within the defined scope of the inquiry’s authorised topics.”
“(2) Nothing in this section shall require the nominated judge to confine the examination to any predetermined or pre-approved list of questions, provided that the examination remains within the scope of the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision under section 5 or 6 . (3) The nominated judge shall conduct the examination in such manner as he or she considers necessary to ensure that the evidence taken is full, accurate and capable of assisting the Inquiry in the performance of its functions.”. As it stands, this section tightly restricts questioning to the exact questions authorised in advance. It creates a narrow predetermined scope that limits flexibility and prevents broader or exploratory lines of inquiry needed to get to the truth.”
“I move amendment No. 21: In page 10, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “Questioning of designated person by nominated judge 9. (1) For the purpose of taking the evidence specified in a decision under section 5(3) to which subsection (6)(c)(i) of that section applies, or specified in a decision under section 6(3) to which subsection (6)(c)(i) of that section applies— (a) no person other than the nominated judge shall ask questions of the designated person, and (b) the nominated judge shall examine the designated person on the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision, and may, for that purpose— (i) put to the designated person any document, record or information relevant to those topics or areas of inquiry, (ii) ask any questions that arise reasonably from the designated person’s answers, from any written statement provided under section 5(5)(a) , or from any relevant document, and (iii) pursue such supplementary or follow-up questions as the nominated judge considers necessary and appropriate for the effective and fair examination of the designated person.”
“I move amendment No. 20: In page 8, to delete lines 31 to 33 and substitute the following: “(5) The Minister shall notify the former holder of ministerial office of the request. The consent in writing of the former holder of ministerial office shall be required only where that person demonstrates that acceding to the request would give rise to a substantial and objectively reasonable risk of prejudice to their legal rights or to the lawful performance of functions exercised during their tenure. Any refusal to consent shall— (a) be provided in writing, (b) set out the specific grounds relied upon, and (c) be subject to review by the Chairman for adequacy and reasonableness.”.”
“The inquiry and the draft memorandum of understanding both support this approach, which strengthens the clarity and overall effectiveness of the co-operation process.”
“(7) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the power of the Chairman to request further written information or clarification from an office holder or former office holder where necessary for the purposes of the Inquiry.”. I will say a few words to amendment No. 19. This amendment introduces a requirement for witnesses to provide a signed and truthful written statement before giving any oral evidence. It establishes a clear baseline account and ensures that key issues and documents are addressed in advance. It allows the chair to dispense with oral testimony where written material is sufficient. Where oral evidence is still needed, questioning can focus on clarifying gaps, inconsistences or outstanding matters.”
“(5) Where the Chairman, having considered a written statement provided under this section, is satisfied that the statement adequately addresses the matters for which evidence was sought, the Chairman may notify the relevant head in writing that oral evidence from the office holder or former office holder is not required. (6) Where the Chairman determines that oral evidence remains necessary, the written statement shall form the baseline account for the purposes of any subsequent examination, and the oral evidence shall be confined, insofar as is practicable, to— (a) clarification of matters contained in the written statement, (b) examination of inconsistencies or omissions, and (c) any further matters reasonably arising from the written statement or relevant documents.”
“(3) A written statement provided under subsection (2) shall— (a) be signed by the office holder or former office holder, (b) contain a declaration that it is true to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, and (c) be furnished within such period as the relevant head may specify, having regard to the efficient conduct of the Inquiry. (4) Upon receipt of a written statement under this section, the designated persons shall provide it to the Chairman as soon as practicable, subject to the condition referred to in section 11(8) .”
“(2) Before any oral evidence is taken in accordance with sections 9 , 10 and 11 , the relevant head shall ensure that the office holder or former office holder concerned provides to the designated persons a written statement addressing— (a) the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the request for assistance, (b) any documents, records or categories of documents identified as relevant under section 5(2)(b) , and (c) any additional matters on which the designated persons consider that a written account is reasonably required for the purposes of the Inquiry.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 8, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “Written statements from office holders and former office holders 6. (1) This section applies where a relevant head has, under section 5 , acceded in whole or in part to a request for assistance for the taking of evidence from an office holder or former office holder of a designated State body.”
“It provides that a former Minister's consent is only required where they can show substantial objectively reasonable risk to their legal rights or past lawful functions. Any refusal must be written, set out the specific grounds and may be reviewed by the inquiry chair for adequacy and reasonableness.”
“It clarifies that a former officeholder may withhold consent only where they can show substantial and objectively reasonable risk to their legal rights for past lawful functions. Any refusal must be written, specify the grounds relied on and can be reviewed by the inquiry chair for adequacy and reasonableness. This safeguard is important because it limits refusals to genuine demonstrable risks, requires written justification and ensures the inquiry chair can review decisions, strengthening transparency and preventing unjustified barriers to the provision of evidence. Amendment No. 20 again seeks to strengthen the effectiveness of legislation in helping the families of victims and survivors of the Omagh bomb in getting to the truth.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 7, to delete lines 7 to 11 and substitute the following: “(5) A relevant head to whom a request for assistance is made shall notify the former office holder of the request. The consent in writing of the former office holder shall be required only where the former office holder demonstrates that answering the specified question would give rise to a substantial and objectively reasonable risk of prejudice to their legal rights or to the performance of functions lawfully exercised during their tenure. A refusal to consent shall— (a) be provided in writing, (b) set out the specific grounds relied upon, and (c) be subject to review by the Chairman for adequacy and reasonableness.”. I will speak subsequently to amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 10 is about ensuring the process delivers truth for families.”
“I move amendment No. 9: In page 7, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(iii) for the purposes of paragraph (i) , a refusal may not be based on a general, speculative, or unparticularised assertion of harm to State security or essential interests. The relevant head shall record in writing the precise nature of the risk relied upon and the reasons why less restrictive measures would not adequately protect that interest,””
“It requires officials to set out clearly the specific harm they allege and to explain why less restrictive options would not suffice, strengthening transparency and accountability within the inquiry process.”
“It ensures that co-operation with the Omagh inquiry is not undermined by broad or undefined national security claims and that designated individuals can be questioned in a structured and transparent process. The purpose of this amendment is to support truth recovery, to provide clarity for those affected, and to guarantee that legitimate security considerations cannot be used to prevent the inquiry from receiving relevant evidence. Amendment No. 9 is designed to ensure no misuse of national security as a rationale for not providing information to the inquiry. The amendment ensures that refusals of co-operation cannot rely on vague or speculative claims of security risk.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 7, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following: “(i) be likely to cause a specific, identifiable and substantial risk of prejudice to the sovereignty or security of the State, and only where such risk cannot reasonably be mitigated through redaction, protective measures, or partial disclosure,”. Specifically on amendment No. 8, we have repeatedly highlighted how national security has frequently been cited in Britain to restrict disclosure in legacy investigations, often leaving families without full access to information about past events. This amendment reinforces that such an approach cannot apply here.”
“This amendment clarifies that any request for assistance must outline the specific topics, documents and purposes and, where relevant, the officeholders from whom evidence is sought. It replaces the reference to "questions" with "topics" and "areas of inquiry". A number of subsequent amendments that substitute “topics, areas of inquiry, or matters” for "questions" are consequential on this amendment. I hope that the Minister of State will accept this grouping of amendments.”
“Specifically on amendment No. 2, and the amendments that follow which are consequential to that amendment, it is a matter that has been raised by legal representatives of the Omagh families. It replaces the requirement to pre-specify exact questions with a requirement to outline topics, areas of questioning and relevant documents. It preserves a fair notice for witnesses by preventing rehearsed, scripted answers. It also aligns the legislation with the inquiry's own rule 10 protocol, ensuring consistency and effective evidence-gathering. The Omagh inquiry's rule 10 protocol sets out who can question witnesses, when others can request permission and how this keeps proceedings fair, focused and non-adversarial.”
“In the first instance, if Senator Blaney has information, the place to address that is in the inquiry. I look forward to him making a contribution to the inquiry when it is set up, as he claims he has information pertinent to the matters around the Omagh bombing. Second, regarding the issue of constituency offices, as I said, I have no idea why he went on to raise that issue, but this does a disservice because the families here are expecting us to deliver legislation, to treat it seriously, consider it with due diligence and ensure the concerns and issues they have campaigned for are reflected in it. To see it dragged into some kind of party political point-scoring exercise does a disservice not just to them, but to the work we are trying to do here. I hope that Member reflects on this matter in future debates.”
“In the context I have outlined, which is that this is a critical and very sensitive piece of work we are doing here, it is of the utmost importance that it is got right. It is also of the utmost importance that the priority in all of our thinking are the victims, survivors and families who lost loved ones in the Omagh bombing. I was very disappointed to hear Senator Blaney's contribution last week, when he made baseless and unsupported allegations in relation to members of Sinn Féin, although he did not specify. He then went on quite bizarrely to talk about constituency offices and rental arrangements. That does a great disservice to the work we are here to do over the course of these weeks to try to get this legislation right and to try to get it done in the interests of those who have campaigned long and hard for it.”
“The families and survivors of Omagh have also genuine concerns that the current draft may give rise to difficulties that could undermine its intended purposes, and these concerns need to be addressed. The tabled amendments will decidedly strengthen the Bill and ensure the concerns of the families and survivors that have been brought to our attention are addressed as far as possible. I hope the Minister of State will engage with this in a constructive spirit, recognising these amendments are intended to be helpful, and that he gives genuine consideration to accepting them. I listened to the Second Stage debate on the Bill last week. I was not able to attend, but I listened to it.”
“Under the terms of this Bill, as it stands, officials may decline to provide evidence and broad security claims could be used to justify withholding sensitive or potentially embarrassing information. Far too often, we have seen that in the past, particularly north of the Border. We have to be clear that national security cannot be used to conceal failures or wrongdoing. Of course, every jurisdiction has lawful national security issues, and we recognise that, but the question is how wide or narrow these are and how they are defined in law. We have seen those clauses continue to be used in a vague and undefined concept by the British Government to effectively veto the release of information that it does not want to release. The way the concept is applied here is of paramount importance. Several amendments deal with this matter.”
“They were not shown draft legislation before publication and have not managed to secure a meeting with the Minister, despite earlier commitments to place their needs at the heart of the process. That has left some feeling sidelined in a process that should be trauma-centred and centred on their experience. Several amendments here reflect the concerns of representatives of victims and survivors, and we can get into the detail of them, but as a general point, the provision of sworn evidence to the inquiry is to be done on a voluntary basis, which leads to some concerns that have been outlined by the previous speakers. Concerns have also been raised that national security limits could restrict disclosure because governments, particularly that of our nearest neighbours, often protect intelligence services and their operations.”
“Families have campaigned for over 27 years for an inquiry and they deserve full transparency and full disclosure about the events that led up to the killing of their loved ones, and we support them in that. In order for the fullest possible co-operation with the Omagh inquiry and to allow it to get on with its work, it is important this legislation is facilitated in getting through the Oireachtas in a timely manner, which we support. That is why our colleague on the justice committee, Deputy Carthy, as Chair, agreed to wave pre-legislative scrutiny, but the legislation must also be got right. The key concern has been a lack of meaningful engagement with families.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, to delete lines 18 to 24 and substitute the following: “(2) A request for assistance under this section shall specify— (a) the topics, areas of inquiry, or matters on which the Chairman requests that evidence be taken in accordance with this Part, (b) any documents, records, or categories of documents relevant to those topics or areas of inquiry, (c) the purpose for which the evidence is requested, and (d) where the Chairman so wishes, any office holder or former office holder of whom the Chairman requests that evidence be taken in relation to a particular topic or area of inquiry specified in accordance with paragraph (a) .” This is an extremely important and sensitive topic for this Chamber to debate and, of course, it is legislation that needs to be treated with great caution, and it needs to be correct.”
“I hope that the Minister of State and the Government will support the Bill in question, which, as I said, was supported in the Dáil and the purpose of which is to protect that area of Dublin and make sure - as has been the case with other monuments and sites of national importance, whether they date back through the ages or are from our more recent revolutionary history - that this site is protected. We have numerous examples of the value of sites of this nature, not just in terms of tourism but also for educating young people in Ireland. I will leave that with the Minister of State.”
“I remind him of my colleague Teachta Aengus Ó Snodaigh's cultural quarter Bill, which was supported by the Dáil and which mandates the Government to protect the Moore Street battlefield area. The latter includes Moore Street, Henry Place, O'Rahilly Parade and Moore Lane. I hope that this project will then be treated with the respect it deserves in the context of the potential of the area to be a cultural quarter for that part of Dublin. God knows, O'Connell Street and other places on the other side of the river could do with some support and a boost in terms of tourism and development. This is a significant opportunity, and the matter comes under the Minister of State's remit.”
“The OPW has technical expertise, which nobody doubts, but PAC hearings show that this expertise is not matched by the financial and managerial discipline required for major capital delivery. The committee has also raised serious concerns about property leasing and rental management, with the State being locked into long, expensive leases and sometimes paying above market rents for years. The Minister of State will have a full agenda for the length of his tenure, but I hope that he will address some of those issues over the course of his time in office. In his opening address, one of the first matters the Minister of State referred to was the progress made in relation to the Moore Street project, which has gone to tender stage.”
“The Committee of Public Accounts, PAC, has, on numerous occasions, raised persistent issues regarding the scale of cost overruns on major projects. Whether the projects are flood relief schemes, heritage restorations or major capital projects, the story is quite similar: underestimated budgets, shifting scopes and costs spiralling far beyond what was originally approved. These overruns represent real money diverted from other priorities, such as schools, hospitals and front-line services. The PAC has also repeatedly highlighted procurement non-compliance within the OPW. Procurement rules exist to protect the taxpayer and ensure fairness. When they are not adhered to, confidence in public administration is undermined. Another recurring theme is weak project planning and governance.”
“One example is Kilmainham Gaol, of whose significance people will know. It is a national monument now but for decades it was left in a state of disrepair. Without the sterling efforts of numerous volunteers and the petitioning of the Government to take control of the site, it might have fallen into complete disrepair. Since it was taken over in the 1980s, the OPW has done a great job renovating and maintaining it, as evidenced by the huge number of visitors each year. I had an opportunity to visit a number of years ago. There is a fascinating history of Ireland, not just political but also social, contained within the site. There is no doubt that very good work is done by the OPW across the State. There are, unfortunately, examples of failures of governance.”
“Thankfully, I have time to congratulate Armagh on its win in the Ulster Senior Football Championship on Sunday after a titanic struggle with Monaghan. It is our first title in 18 years, which is being greatly celebrated at home. I hope the GAA takes note of the continued importance of the provincial championships, not just to footballers but also to fans, because their significance seems to have been diminished in recent years in the context of the organisation of the all-Ireland championships. The provincial titles are clearly still of great importance to all Gaels. The Minister of State is very welcome. Like others, I recognise the good work being done by the OPW across numerous projects and the technical expertise displayed by its staff in restoring and maintaining heritage sites and other buildings.”
“The idea committed to by both Government parties of active preparation for reunification now has an added urgency. There is real jeopardy and uncertainty coming down the line in terms of British politics and who might lead it. The relationship with Britain is very important to us and it will continue to be. I ask the Deputy Leader to raise this issue with the Government and to underline the importance and urgency of early engagement directly with the British Government on planning for constitutional change on this island and our future relationship with the island of Britain.”
“If the election result were to be repeated in the British general election, and that is not a foregone conclusion, there is the real prospect of a Reform and Nigel Farage-led government. Bear in mind this is the party that brought us Brexit, with a reckless disregard for the implications for Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. Its approach to politics is generally from the Trump playbook, which is about creating chaos and uncertainty to benefit the very wealthy few. It is incumbent on us to ensure Ireland does not once again become collateral damage from British nationalist interests. I urge the Government, and I ask the Deputy Leader to urge the Government, to begin engagement with the British Government, whoever may lead it after today, given that it certainly has at least some time to run.”
“Since both leaders have been elected there is now a commitment to strengthen this relationship and to work together to achieve self-determination and independence for Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The election result has profound implications for the British state and the union, as the prospect of significant constitutional change is gathering pace not just in Ireland but in Britain as well. That requires us on this island to step up our engagement on this, particularly at Government level. Another reason the election is potentially important for us, and again this underlines the absolute necessity for the Government to engage and prepare on behalf of the people here, is the rise in support for Reform.”
“Our guests in the Gallery are very welcome. I want to raise the issue of the election results in Britain last weekend. I am sure most of us are watching our phones to see developments and what might shape up in Britain with regard to the Prime Minister. That is important because Britain is our nearest neighbour but it is also important for several other reasons. This is the first time the Administrations in the North, Scotland and Wales have been led by pro-independence First Ministers. Michelle O'Neill was elected in 2022, there is John Swinney in Scotland, and Rhun ap Iorwerth of Plaid Cymru has now been elected in Cardiff. There already is a close working relationship between ourselves, and I am sure many people in Ireland, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.”
“I do not see how my party could support a motion that gives credit to measures that have fallen far short of what is required to give genuine relief to people at this time.”
“If the Government wants to talk up its annual progress report that is fine but for citizens across this State, the key takeaway is that at a time of unprecedented wealth the Government does not recognise their struggles in the here and now. According to the Taoiseach, they can wait until October's budget for any help that may come, if at all. I am pleased about the predictions of a budget surplus and that the economy is resilient but there is so much more that could be done to help people who are struggling. The motion congratulates the Government but the measures have fallen far short. That has been the clear message from the people who protested, and since then, in terms of the real experience of struggling families on the ground.”
“The motion congratulates the Government for its prudent fiscal management but it seems to have forgotten already that ordinary workers, lorry drivers, and farmers were left with no option but to take to the roads to make their voices heard. This is an example of how out of touch the Government has become. Its fiscal management brought the State to a standstill. Sinn Féin has brought a sensible proposal to the Government to introduce an emergency budget that cuts the cost of electricity by delivering energy credits to families and reduces the tax on fuel, thereby bringing it to affordable levels. We also need a social welfare package that supports people who are struggling, including carers, older people and disabled people and a permanent cut to the universal social charge that will put money back in workers' pockets.”
“That makes the introduction of an emergency budget an option that is open to the Government. The reality of life for the majority of citizens across this State is that they are counting every euro like they never have before. The cost of food and basic groceries has skyrocketed and the cost of fuel and home heating oil is soaring. These are the necessities of life; not luxuries. The energy regulator, as Senator Joe Conway said, published figures yesterday confirming that almost 317,000 households were behind on their electricity bill in February. More than half of these households are in debt for over 90 days and the number is growing every day. The average amount now owed stands at almost €500, which is an increase of almost €65 on last year.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. The motion tonight is a brave attempt by the Government parties to put a bit of a sticking plaster over the discontent that spilled onto our roads over the past number of weeks. The offering by the Government in response gives only basic supports to those in the haulage and farming industries and little else for the majority of the public. There is nothing for home heating oil, only delayed increases in the carbon tax and only temporary reductions in excise duties on petrol, diesel and marked gas oil. In a time of abundance the Government's largesse has been very selective. Last week we learned of a predicted general Government surplus of over €9 billion for this year, with another predicted €9 billion for the following year.”
“There are some lessons that could be learned from that legislation. It moves things in advance of anything that obtains in Britain as well. There are good measures that can be brought in. ICTU is an all-Ireland body and it wants to see standards collectively raised across Ireland for all workers. I ask the Leader to specifically check those points and to offer our support and solidarity for all workers in this trade union week.”
“The programme for Government committed the Government to publish an action plan for collective bargaining in 2025 as part of the fulfilment of the EU directive. That remains outstanding. We are midway through 2026 so I would appreciate it if the Leader would raise a query as to where we are with that with the relevant Government Ministers and what the cause of that delay might be. The trade union leaders from ICTU also made reference to the fact that even though we often lag behind on a number of things on the Northern side of Border, in this case my colleague, Caoimhe Archibald, is beginning to bring the good jobs Bill through the Assembly to put it into legislation. It will put the rights of workers and unions in the workplace at a much more advanced stage than is the case across the rest of Ireland.”
“It made the case that good jobs should be at the heart of the economy. It is not simply about pay; it is about conditions and having a supported and fulfilled workforce, which is a key component for any successful business. The quality jobs argument includes a legal right to collective bargaining, a legal right for trade unions to access workplaces and greater supports for workplace representatives. As I said, that not only improves the conditions of those in the workplace but has been proven in many studies to give a much more effective, motivated and collaborative workforce. It is of benefit to public sector or private sector businesses to ensure workers are treated correctly in the correct fashion. The ask of the Government is to fully implement the EU adequate minimum wages directive.”
“I join my Seanad colleague in acknowledging the events for workers this week. This is trade union week, leading up to the May Day celebrations. We acknowledge the workers who have lost their lives in very dangerous circumstances. As she says, such instances have thankfully lessened over the years. Yesterday, there was a similar ceremony at Stormont which I had the privilege of speaking at over a number of years. It is important on both sides of the Border to acknowledge that and to acknowledge the sacrifices workers have had to make at times to pledge to ensure conditions continue to improve for workers right across the island. Earlier, there was a presentation in the audiovisual room from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about its quality employment and good jobs document and the promotion of a new economic model.”
“Other issues raised in the context of cross-Border rebuilding included the whole area of taxation, recognition of qualifications and pensions. There have been promises over many years to have a one-stop shop to address all of those issues but that has not materialised. There is work to do for both Governments in that regard. The all-Ireland economy is growing. It has been growing significantly despite all the obstacles. There is, however, a danger in the time ahead of both economies, North and South, diverging. It is in the interests of this State, as well as the interests of the whole island, to ensure that the economic growth potential is harnessed and that sufficient investment is put in for infrastructure and the removal of barriers in order that it can benefit everybody who lives across the island of Ireland.”
“The chambers of commerce on the southern side of the Border in particular made the point that investment in these on one side benefits both sides and is a benefit to the all-island economy. People recognise the work being done by the shared island fund, and there was a strong call for a structural fund agreed between the British and Irish Governments, and with input from the Executive in the North, to look at the idea of necessary infrastructure across the island. There was criticism of the lack of cross-Border infrastructure planning, which is clearly necessary. In a context where the economic output, even with all of the challenges, looks significantly good, that is something the Government needs to address.”
“I note also the comments by the Minister, Deputy Chambers, that the Government intends to increase capital investment on critical infrastructure. I was at a meeting of the Good Friday Agreement committee this morning that was attended by a number of representatives from chambers of commerce from both sides of the Border. Some were from as far away from the Border as Dún Laoghaire and Bangor, but most were from areas either side of the Border. We were discussing the opportunities that exist and that have already arisen in the context of all-Ireland economic growth, the huge potential that there is for more and the barriers being faced. Some of the barriers identified by the chambers of commerce relate to critical infrastructure such as wastewater treatment, water services, rail and road networks.”
“I concur with Senator Keogan's remarks on the abuse of Senator Flynn. I wish the Cathaoirleach well in his discussions with the social media companies, although from past experience I would not be overly optimistic about how they run their platforms and whether the protection they should be giving to people will materialise. The spring economic statement released this morning refers to the prospect of a surplus of €9 billion, which is almost twice what had been predicted. Certainly, in the first instance, that will put the Government in a position where it can meaningfully step up on the cost-of-living crisis and the cost of fuel and put some significant supports in place rather than implementing actions of they kind which have been taken to date and which clearly have had very limited impact and only in a certain number of sectors.”