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 5 of 9.
“I would like to hear about the programme for collaboration to end the practice of people having to leave the island for critical treatment, how it is progressing, what the barriers are and how we can all assist in ensuring those barriers are removed to allow people to access the services they need.”
“We have seen very good examples of collaboration in services preventing people from having to travel off the island, which is exhausting and damaging to their health and their outcomes. That was particularly so in the case of Mrs. Sherry in my part of the world. Will the Deputy Leader ask the Minister for Health to give a statement to the Seanad on the extent of all-Ireland co-operation in healthcare and the barriers that still exist? My experience of having held ministerial posts is that these things will only be driven by collaboration between the two Ministers North and South. It is from there that the drive for proper action and outcomes comes.”
“The response was that there was a capacity issue even though services in Dublin and London share the same laboratories in Europe, meaning it should have been possible for her to be treated here. Tragically for her family, she died in England, separated from her children, other family members and her friends. The family was told that it was hoped the capacity issue would be resolved within a six-year timeframe. When the Minister of Health in the North attended a meeting of the Good Friday Agreement committee last December, he cited the lack of capacity issues in terms of people from the North being able to avail of critical treatment in the South. The Minister for Health has made no response to that statement. This is a matter of real concern.”
“The cancer treatment service at Altnagelvin hospital, which serves the north west, has proven to be a great success. The Taoiseach has stated that cancer knows no borders and has lauded the Altnagelvin centre, noting that patients in the north west can access services locally and remain close to friends and families when receiving treatment. Unfortunately, there are still situations where that is not possible. A woman from my area of south Armagh, Catherine Sherry, had to travel to England for what she and her family hoped was potentially life-saving treatment. She made a number of preparatory trips and made inquiries as to whether she could have the treatment in Dublin.”
“I raise the issue of access to all-Ireland healthcare. Representatives of the special EU programmes body and Co-operation and Working Together, CAWT, appeared before the Good Friday Agreement committee this week and provided some excellent examples of collaboration and co-operation, particularly in the Border area, where CAWT operates North and South. However, significant barriers remain to accessing critical treatments and care. There are issues with data sharing, which will be critical to resolve in advancing an all-Ireland approach to health services. There have been notable successes over the years. Being able to avail of cardiology services for children in Dublin has stopped children from having to travel from the North to Britain for those services.”
“I urge the Government to put measures in place to ensure everyone can access public services in the same way. On the whole, AI can be a force for good. It as the potential to revolutionise the healthcare sector and in particular, offer advances in diagnostics and other areas. However, we can not lose sight of the fact that it can be manipulated by bad actors for their own gain and appropriate regulation must be in place to ensure the positive potential of AI is not lost to the actions of those who wish to cause harm.”
“During statements in the Dáil on this topic, the Government stated it plans to publish an updated national digital and AI strategy, which will set out a clear roadmap for Ireland's digital and AI adoption and the development in the years ahead. The Government also referenced the use of AI in public services. We accept AI is in both the present and the future. However, the Government has to be cognisant of the fact that for a huge cohort of citizens, it has become very difficult to engage with public services. The growth of digital access to State services, the MyWelfare app, the Revenue website and the portals people have to access to pay a bill or make a money transfer have coincided with the sharp reduction in the face to face provision of these services.”
“I welcome the publication of legislation yesterday by my colleagues Deputies Matt Carthy and Máire Devine, which will criminalise the generation of non-consensual, intimate images and videos. This is a step in the right direction. Of course, we all welcome the positive applications of AI and its massive potential for the future of enterprise on the island. The Government recently published its enterprise investment package. In respect of the very substantial investment announced, it is imperative that small and medium-sized businesses can access that money as easily as possible. The last thing we want is for AI to end up overburdening businesses that are already struggling to survive.”
“Many do not fully understand it or how to take steps to enhance the online safety of children and young people. That is why it is essential the sector is properly regulated. The companies creating the technology for their own use on their platforms understand it. They must ensure it is not used for illegal or harmful purposes. I welcome the publication of Coimisiún na Meán's legally binding online safety code a number of years ago and its ongoing contribution to the consultation about the Government's plans, as referenced in the Minister of State's contribution. I am also glad the State is moving away from the self-regulatory system which pertained previously.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Based on the previous contributions, I think we are all largely on the same script. We recognise the benefits of this but we also recognise the great harm and in particular, the great sense of concern there has been in recent times around some of the tech companies and their use of AI. This debate is timely, given there is concern around that but that stems from a concern around a light touch approach to regulation, which people have exploited. People and parents in particular have been disgusted, outraged and fearful about the potential of AI and what it can mean for themselves and their families. Technology is changing and developing at a pace that far outstrips our ability to monitor it in real time.”
“Her good jobs Bill will focus on creating good and well-paid jobs and, importantly, will protect employment and workers' rights. The ESRI annual survey provides a foundation for more informed debate, better policy-making and stronger co-operation. It is a resource we should all fully use. It is about co-ordination and planning across the island and good alignment, and importantly, it is also about better outcomes for our people and communities and an economy that works for those priorities. For the first time, we will have the ability to monitor trends in our shared economy and also track reactions to policy interventions. This is an exciting development for economists and has the potential to have a real impact on citizens' lives into the future. I commend it to the Seanad.”
“Both economies record growth in economic output, with the North growing by 2.8% and the South by 3.2%. In an uncertain global environment of political instability, that points to a resilient all-Ireland economy and suggests that when we work together, it can translate into positive outcomes and results for our workers, our communities and the economy. For too long, the North has been viewed by some in this jurisdiction as a potential economic drain on the finances of this State. The report shows that this does not have to be the case. In the North, the economy minister, Caoimhe Archibald, is helping to turn the economy around, delivering for people in the here and now while also working for the constitutional change required to really turbo-charge the all-Ireland economy.”
“I would like to raise the significance of a report produced by the Economic and Social Research Institute just last month. The report is the first to consider annual economic surveys and to assess economic trends across Ireland using comparable data and it is a very robust piece of work. There is much that can be learned from it and the significance for policy formation across the island should not be underestimated. It is the first time policymakers North and South will have access to a shared and consistent evidence base on economic outputs, labour markets, incomes, living standards and public finances. This is important because good decisions depend on good data and until now such data did not exist in a comparable form. The findings are positive and they also highlight challenges and areas for future work and collaboration.”
“The triple lock exists to protect that neutrality. That position has earned us a respected and honourable reputation internationally as a defender of peace, human rights and global justice. It is a position worth defending. This proposal from the Government compromises neutrality and must be rejected but we remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine and all nations and peoples under attack from imperialist forces. We have fervently hoped that a just and lasting peace will be achieved in Ukraine. Our opposition to this motion does not contradict that.”
“We respect the prerogative of individual member states to participate in the trade of arms according to their own policies and priorities, but this should occur outside the ambit of EU structures, structures that should respect the neutrality of various member states. It is worth noting that three member states have already opted not to participate in the loan, the repayment of which is dependent on the payment of reparations by Russia. Ireland is a militarily neutral state. For that reason, we cannot support the issuing of any loan that could be used to purchase weapons. While we respect the decision of other EU member states to provide arms if they choose to do so, Ireland's position is different. Neutrality must be upheld. The Irish people strongly support the policy of military neutrality.”
“Sinn Féin acknowledges and welcomes the many Ukrainian citizens who have made Ireland their home while war continues in their country. The State has provided humanitarian support and assistance with energy costs. We believe this support should continue. We fully support aid for non-lethal purposes. However, the proposal before us includes no guarantees that this €90 billion package will not be used to purchase weapons. In fact, some EU states stand to benefit from arms sales to Ukraine as a consequence of this loan. The EU itself was conceived as an organisation for the promotion of trade, economic integration and peace. It was never intended to be a substitute for or an equivalent to a military alliance.”
“Okay. We will be opposing this motion and have tabled an amendment outlining the approach we believe a militarily neutral EU member state should take to providing support for Ukraine. We are deeply sympathetic to the people of Ukraine and fully recognise the act of aggression committed by the Russian Federation in its invasion. Sinn Féin values and defends the right of every nation to sovereignty, a right that has been denied to our own country since partition. On a human level, we understand the parallels between Ireland's experience and that of Ukraine. Both peoples have suffered under colonial domination and the pursuit of imperial interests. In that context, Ukraine has every right to defend itself, just as any sovereign nation does when invaded. We believe that Ireland has shown significant solidarity with Ukraine.”
“I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "That Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following: “notes draft Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation on the establishment of a Loan for Ukraine, a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 21st January, 2026; recognises that: - the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation was an act of aggression which was motivated by expansion and imperialist ambitions; - the people of Ukraine have shown immense resolve, resilience and determination; - the Irish people have stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and share their hope for a just, sustainable and lasting peace, which respects the rights of the Ukrainian people; - Ireland has provided and continues to rightly provide support for the Ukrainian people by way of aid for non-lethal purposes including infrastructure, energy costs and humanitarian needs; - the nature of this aid reflects the fact that while Ireland has a politically clear position in condemning Russian aggression, it is and remains the position that Ireland is a militarily neutral state; therefore, it does not provide military aid; - the European Union was conceived of as an organisation for the promotion of trade, economic integration and peace and was never intended as a substitute for or equivalent to military alliances; - we respect the prerogative of individual member states to participate in the trade of arms, according to their own policies and priorities but that this should occur outside of the ambit of EU structures, respecting the need for the EU to respect the neutrality of various member states; - the enhanced cooperation mechanisms were never envisioned to be used for purposes such as large-scale loans for purposes including military expenditure and that some of the checks and balances that would be typically applied have been discarded in this instance; - there is no obstacle to member states who wish to provide arms to Ukraine in providing loans either individually or in concert with other countries, outside of EU vehicles; - the humanitarian situation in Ukraine remains considerable and civilian assistance remains necessary, particular in sustaining key civilian infrastructure, particularly energy infrastructure which has been relentlessly attacked; and therefore resolves to restrict our participation in lending money to Ukraine under this enhanced cooperation proposal or otherwise to civilian humanitarian and non-military purposes and shall not participate in loans which may be used for arms.” Senator McCormack and I are sharing time.”
“One of these issues was raised at the finance committee through correspondence and I have asked the committee to look into it. How these outstanding loans are dealt with by banks passing them on to other organisations is an issue that is coming before us. Sinn Féin will not be opposing this legislation. The service provided by Credit Review is required and has benefited many small enterprises and farmers across the State.”
“We now have a range of other lenders in the market. Does the Minister of State have any plan to bring them within the scope of the credit review service? With regard to Ulster Bank, there is a wider issue with Credit Review. Banks in this State currently lend to businesses across the island, so it would be worth examining the extension of the service to businesses in the North of Ireland that have borrowed from banks in this part of the island. I hope the Minister of State would reconsider whether this could be done in the future as a further protection for Irish businesses and the all-Ireland economy. I concur with some of Senator Joe O'Reilly's points about the passing on of loans to other organisations and people's very different experiences.”
“However, one of the potential weaknesses of the Bill is that any recommendation made by the credit reviewer to a bank in favour of a small business seeking credit is non-binding. Some constituents who have been signposted to the service and secured a recommendation that a bank should lend to them have still been refused by the bank. This is something that we will be closely monitoring in terms of banks' compliance with recommendations to reconsider loan applications that have been rejected. It would be a useful proposition for the Credit Review Office to monitor and perhaps publish information on the rate of bank reversals of decisions not to lend based on a recommendation by the service. I note that the service currently only works with AIB, Bank of Ireland and PTSB and previously worked with Ulster Bank.”
“I welcome the fact that the Government has restored the Bill to the Order Paper for the current Oireachtas session as it committed to do at the end of the previous Oireachtas. I understand the legislation is required due to the ongoing wind-up of NAMA, which means that the functions of the Credit Review Office need to be put on a legislative footing. Sinn Féin will be supporting the Bill, as the Government has confirmed that it will help guarantee the continuity of the industry funding model, formalise the governance structures of the service and support the enhancement of service's responsibility. I have spoken to colleagues and they have confirmed that they have used Credit Review and signposted constituents to its services. In some cases, there have been very positive outcomes for small businesses, including farmers.”
“Given that we were unable to secure a debate on this in the other House, I hope we receive sufficient assurances to allow us to support the passage of this. A number of questions still remain. We want to ensure that all of the banks' reporting obligations, as well as the powers of the Ministers and the Central Bank, are covered in full by other EU and domestic legislation. I would welcome some clarity in relation to whether that €2 billion recovery includes the interest that was accrued on the loan taken out to pay that out to the banks.”
“I have heard Senators Crowe and O'Reilly say that these things are covered and this is a duplication, and that as a matter of fact there are more or stronger obligations in terms of transparency. I would like to hear that response from the Minister himself. Can he give a guarantee that no changes to oversight of the banking sector will be introduced by the revocation of these statutory instruments? There was also the question of the banking remuneration section, which stated that taxpayers covered €2 billion, as Senator Joe O'Reilly said. That is misleading because there was also interest on the loans borrowed to bail out the banks. Has the entirety of that contribution been recovered, not just the €2 billion itself? Those are a couple of questions.”
“Can the Minister outline the current obligations that the banks are still under and that are relevant to these statutory instruments? It also says that the obligations and rights assigned to the Minister under the scheme have largely been codified into other legislation. He said in his statement that this is to avoid duplication. For me, duplication means that they have been entirely codified into other legislation, not largely. That begs questions as to whether the powers of the Minister and the Central Bank have been wholly covered by other legislation. An assurance was therefore required that this does not mean a reduction in ministerial powers.”
“While the schemes themselves were limited to a certain approach, the obligations and transparency should be ongoing. The Minister in his statement said that the approach that has since been taken in EU and domestic legislation has more than compensated for the removal of these, and that this is to remove duplication. That would lead us to believe that all the issues that were in the previous set of obligations under these schemes are now covered again. The statement and briefing note this morning raises a number of questions. It talks about the rationale for the revocation of these statutory instruments, and states that three banks have already released some of the obligations related to CIFS and ELG schemes.”
“I welcome the Minister and thank the Leader for facilitating today's debate. I raised an objection to how this was passing through the House yesterday. It passed through the Dáil without debate, which Members found unfair and objectionable. We felt the Government did not facilitate proper scrutiny of the legislation. I welcome the opportunity to raise a number of questions this afternoon. A number of speakers have made the point that these regulations were brought in for a time and a specific set of circumstances, which is quite right. The obligations under them were brought in to respond to a particular crisis. Arguably, in terms of transparency and reporting, if those obligations had been there prior to the financial crisis of 2008, we might not have ended up in such a mess.”
“We oppose this section as it places an unfair burden on farmers. This measure will, in effect, mean that a farmer who has any element of commercial poultry on the farm will have to set up two different systems. Some farmers have estimated that this measure could cost up to €30,000. The other fact is the timeframe for the introduction of the measure. Farmers have not had enough time to decouple their businesses. In removing the flat rate from poultry so quickly, the legislation creates a viability issue for farmers. The Government will say that there has been engagement on this measure but we feel that the speed of its introduction and the administrative changes proposed will create an unfair complexity for farmers and, therefore, we oppose the section.”
“I know plenty of people who have kids in Dublin and even the thought of getting a house in Dublin is way beyond them. We want to see proper supports going to those who are trying to buy houses and to look again at this policy which seems to say that unless we give developers more and more money over time, we will not get the houses we need. We have to have a range of approaches. Sinn Féin has presented costed and detailed proposals in relation to it. For that reason and in a similar way consistent with some of the other approaches we have taken to other measures in this Bill, we oppose this provision.”
“I thank the contributors for the constructive discussion of this. Senator Byrne asked for our plans for this, but I do not think Senators will thank me for going through them in chapter and verse at this stage of the evening. Suffice it to say, there are sufficient plans, which we have put forward repeatedly. Despite what has been said, the difficulty for us is that this €1.5 billion does not go to home buyers. It goes to those who build homes and the repeated practice and policy of the Government has been to enrich those who are building houses. We accept there is a need to incentivise housing and for a range of housing provision. I am not sure for the young people that €35,000 is going to get them a house, particularly living in Dublin. Nonetheless, we wish them all well in attempting to.”
“That will mean a potential cost to the State of over €1.5 billion of taxpayers' money. As with other propositions under this Bill, it is simply the wrong prioritisation from the Government in trying to deal with the housing crisis and support for ordinary working families. We oppose this section.”
“This is in a similar vein in that the approach of the Government to the supply of homes - that is, to put money in the pockets of developers - is one that has been tried, tested and failed repeatedly. The proposition is to cut VAT on the sale of apartments. It is not something that will support the hundreds of thousands of people across the State who cannot access housing. It is not a measure that will increase the supply of accommodation, although the Government will undoubtedly attempt to window dress it as such. This is a tax reduction for big developers. With this measure, the Government will hand developers a tax break of approximately €20,000 for each of the over 19,000 apartments currently under construction. The Government says this measure will last until 2030.”
“I have heard what both the Minister and Senator Byrne have said. There are many people who get up early in the morning and work two and three jobs who cannot afford housing. Affordability is not simply about the benefits to the developer and people who already, in all likelihood, are fairly well off and wealthy. Affordability is about how people can reach and afford those homes. That is why we argue the tax breaks are wrongly directed to support those who are already doing quite well. People here work very hard in whatever level of job they are at. It is not simply about people who are wealthy and are building apartments. We need to ensure people can afford apartments. Supply is critical but so is affordability.”
“I am objecting to this section simply to say that, consistent with other propositions the Government has brought forward, I believe this is the wrong course and the wrong prioritisation at a time when people are really struggling.”
“As I said about the previous section of the Bill to which we objected, we have no issue with people getting research and development support. The question is about the level of that support when there is an absence of support for others who badly need it. It is a matter of the priorities the Government has put forward in terms of tax breaks. This measure will mean that a developer who builds 50 apartments and makes a profit of €2.5 million will pay no tax whatsoever, whereas up until now they had to pay tax. That is set against an overall Bill that provides no support for people who are struggling, such as ordinary workers and their families. People have faced the cost-of-living crisis and all the other elements in terms of rent and the price of homeownership that they have been burdened with.”
“All of these challenges are affecting quite a lot of families. This particular section is blind to all of that, as is the Finance Bill as a proposition generally. I have no issue with people being attracted in who will generate wealth, but trickle-down economics is a theory that has been proved to be disastrously wrong. The Government has responsibility for ensuring there is fairness in the financial and taxation systems to give everybody a break.”
“I fully agree with the business of attracting foreign direct investment and skilled workers. I spent my previous post as Minister for the Economy North of the Border doing exactly that. However, what we also need in the system is fairness. We need to ensure that people who are from this country, who work here and who live on the bread line now with the cost-of-living crisis also experience a benefit from this. This is a clear opportunity for a fairer taxation approach which would benefit all people who work here, not just those who are in the high-earning category. People who earn up to €1 million are not in need of further tax breaks. We have a lot of people who are struggling to meet their everyday bills, have had energy credits removed from them, and have seen increases in price on fuel, groceries and rent.”
“Sinn Féin will of course oppose this section in its entirety. This section very clearly displays where the Government's priorities lie. The Bill does not aim to assist ordinary workers; rather it is those who are already comfortably off who get the big breaks. There are tax cuts in this budget which are not for the ordinary man or woman going out to work every day. The people who are getting them are those who can avail of the special assignee relief programme, SARP. The previous Minister for Finance, and I assume the current Minister stands over it, has guaranteed €60 million in taxpayers' money to help them. These workers, who have to be earning over €125,000 and up to €1 million will get a tax cut of up to €100,000. That really beggars' belief given the circumstances that many families across this State currently face.”
“This is about providing real and substantial tax relief to workers across the State, something that the Government chose not to do in the budget. It is both surprising and amazing that with a budget of €9.4 billion, the Government managed to leave workers worse off. Once again, ordinary workers in the State are carrying the can for the excesses of the banks, while the banks continue to enjoy the protected status under this Finance Bill. That is why I proposed the recommendation.”
“I move recommendation No. 1: In page 8, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “Report on Universal Social Charge 3. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on removing the Universal Social Charge from the first €40,000 a person earns.”. This recommendation is about ensuring that the first €40,000 anyone earns will be exempt from the universal social charge, USC. This would be a targeted measure, although everybody who earns up to that amount would benefit. The cut-off is €40,000, which is appropriate. This amendment would benefit people by up to €746, which would make a real difference, particularly in the cost-of-living crisis.”
“To allow motions like this through without debate is bad practice and, for that reason, I will be opposing the Order of Business as it includes this motion today.”
“If these schemes are revoked, it seems, there will be less obligation on the banks in terms of reporting to the Minister and Central Bank on compliance, risk management, executive pay, etc. Some of these may be covered by other legislation or EU regulation, but that does not seem to be the case for all these obligations. I do not believe it is good practice to have a change to banking regulations pass through the Seanad without debate or guarantees that these changes in no way reduce the banking regulation in this state. It is a poor way to do business. We have all been elected to this House to provide a degree of scrutiny of what the Government is doing and to ensure that we are holding to account decisions, particularly legislative decisions, that affect the people of the State.”
“The issue I wish to raise is on the Order of Business itself. It is the proposition to take without debate the motion regarding about the credit institutions (financial support) (revocation) scheme and the credit institutions (eligible liabilities guarantee) scheme 2025. I am very concerned this is a deregulation of the banking sector and that it is to be done without debate, particularly in circumstances where I do not believe we have been provided with adequate detail. The advisory note attached to the motion states there are a number of obligations set out in the credit institutions (financial support) scheme and the eligible liabilities guarantee scheme that continue to apply to Bank of Ireland, AIB and PTSB group companies.”
“I would like to see a debate in the Chamber in relation to tourism on the island generally, particularly tourism branding, to discuss how we can make it more successful. At the enterprise committee, we recently had discussions with tourism providers about how we help them in the job they are doing. We can make the job done by small and large providers right across the island easier. We recognise the economic benefits they bring to the entirety of the island. I would welcome a debate on that topic.”
“Of course, the Wild Atlantic Way has been a very successful tourism exercise, and one which I know a lot of the tourism providers on the north coast are very keen to be linked into in a more formal way. There is more work to be done. This initial step is very welcome. As part of the brief when I was a minister, I visited New York, Chicago and Toronto to talk to tour operators. With the simplicity of our message, and certainty of our branding for an island as small as this one, it makes enormous sense that we take successful brands and apply them to as much of the island as makes branding sense. That makes the job of Tourism Ireland, which does a remarkable job internationally in promoting the whole island, much easier. I have had the pleasure of hosting events internationally where we talk to tour operators.”
“I was working on this project in my previous role as Minister for the Economy in the North with the then Minister for tourism, Deputy Catherine Martin. That function has since been brought into the Department of enterprise, under the Minister, Deputy Burke, which is a good move. We brought together the three tourism agencies on the island, namely, Tourism Ireland, which markets the island internationally, Fáilte Ireland and Tourism NI, to discuss the very successful branding under Fáilte Ireland's banner. We were told that Ireland's Ancient East is under review to assess its effectiveness. That was a year or 18 months ago. It is time we heard where that review is.”
“I welcome this morning's announcement that the tourism branding of Ireland's Hidden Heartlands is being extended north of the Border into County Fermanagh. That is good for tourism providers in Fermanagh. For people who may not have visited it, Fermanagh is a scenically very beautiful county, with many tourism offerings. The Minister for the Economy north of the Border, Caoimhe Archibald MLA, has added a £300,000 marketing boost to Fermanagh to welcome the initiative. This particular expansion of Fáilte Ireland's brand into the North makes a lot of sense in terms of marketing and the similarity of the offer that is found in Fermanagh to that on offer in the rest of the area that is covered by the Hidden Heartlands.”
“The Government has the resources to say to people, "Here is our view of what unity would look like and what the steps towards it would be." That has not happened and it needs to happen. It is a major deficiency in the Government's approach to this project.”
“Those are two areas of deficiency on which the Government needs to step up to the plate. We must be told what conversations it is having or will have with the British Government. It cannot simply leave it back to the judgment. This has always been the case even though that is stated in the Good Friday Agreement. The real politics of this, as everyone knows, is about a conversation between the Irish and British Governments to decide when a border poll is called. The Government cannot opt out of active preparation. It cannot tell the rest of us we need to engage more, involve ourselves in reconciliation and do more to persuade people while itself opting out of that process. The Government has the resources to do all of that. We have limited resources but we try every day to do it.”
“I must introduce him to the Sinn Féin website where you can find copious documents in relation to all-Ireland matters. The Government is staying out of that. On the one hand, it is saying there is no evidence of that, that people have not come to terms, and Senator McDowell makes the point that people need to understand the proposition. The central political entity which will be involved in shaping the new Ireland is the Irish Government, and it is not now putting on the table its ideas for that, how it would manage it and what its preparations are for changing two administrations into one administration. If the Government is waiting for the Secretary of State or the British Government, in its own interests, to decide that the time is right for a border poll, what preparation is it involved in for that?”