Darren O'Rourke
Meath East · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“It is a statement of fact that in recent years we have seen a reduced number of classroom teachers. Budget 2026 led to the removal of 498 classroom teachers, a net reduction of 381 when one looks at the gains. The year 2025-26 saw a reduction of 290 and 2024-25 a reduction of 237. That has a real impact.”
“It has created duplication, inefficiency and a barrier to our natural prosperity. It has left the North underfunded by Westminster’s austerity and battered by the chaos of Brexit while the South has suffered from a fractured market and a divided island. We are both less than we could be. Irish unity is not a burden; it is an investment.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on statements on the fiscal implications of Irish unity. We hear people tell us Irish unity is a cost we cannot afford but the truth of the matter is partition is the cost we have already paid for for a century and more, and it is a price that is too high.”
“I thank the Minister. She said from November that 97% of posts were filled. In real terms at the same time, 996 teaching posts were unfilled, which is almost 1,000. Figures as recent as last week tell us that over 39,000 primary school students were in classes of 30 pupils or more in the past school year.”
“Again, we have those figures from a briefing we had with the Department as recently as yesterday. It is all welcome progress but the question I am asking today is what is the unmet need as things stand? How many children do not have an offer of a school place?”
“I wish the staff and the Minister all the best for the summer. I know it will be a busy summer but I hope that everyone gets a break. I ask the Minister to state the number of children with additional needs who require but have yet to receive an offer of an appropriate school place for September 2026, based on her most recent meeting with…”
The complete record
Every one of 706 lines we hold for Darren O'Rourke, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 15.
“The British Government will still pay pensions, just as it does for retired citizens in Spain, France or Ireland. This debate, following on from last week's debate, and welcome plans in the months ahead from those in politics and elsewhere should be the catalyst for ambitious planning. Irish unity is not a cost to be feared; it is an opportunity to be seized. Let us build a new Ireland - economically vibrant, socially just and united in every way.”
“It has created duplication, inefficiency and a barrier to our natural prosperity. It has left the North underfunded by Westminster’s austerity and battered by the chaos of Brexit while the South has suffered from a fractured market and a divided island. We are both less than we could be. Irish unity is not a burden; it is an investment. It is an investment in ending the historic necessity for emigration, which has forced so many to leave our shores. It is also an investment in creating a single, dynamic all-island economy and in building the critical infrastructure our people deserve. The cost of not uniting - stagnation, two health systems, two tax regimes, a Border region and a wider economy that is held back - is far greater. We have the fiscal capacity and the moral imperative to make this work. We need the political will.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on statements on the fiscal implications of Irish unity. We hear people tell us Irish unity is a cost we cannot afford but the truth of the matter is partition is the cost we have already paid for for a century and more, and it is a price that is too high. Others have mentioned subvention and how it reduces when we strip away pensions and Westminster debt to an initial annual deficit of approximately €1.75 billion. I say “initial”. In the context of a budget of over €125 billion for 2027, this is manageable. That deficit will disappear when the benefits of unity are realised. If we are to consider the fiscal implications of Irish unity - of course, we should - then we must consider the cost of partition because the real economic failure is partition itself.”
“It is my ambition to have 1,000 extra primary school teachers and I will strongly be making the case for that in the Sinn Féin budget. I ask the Minister to do the same in her own negotiations.”
“It is a statement of fact that in recent years we have seen a reduced number of classroom teachers. Budget 2026 led to the removal of 498 classroom teachers, a net reduction of 381 when one looks at the gains. The year 2025-26 saw a reduction of 290 and 2024-25 a reduction of 237. That has a real impact. I can give the example of Lismullen National School. I hope to correspond with the Minister directly in relation to Lismullen National School, if she is agreeable. Parents have written to me. Next year, there will be a class of 36 and parents, as the Minister would herself, are identifying the challenge that will present as regards the type of support that is going to be available for their children, the type of attention and schooling opportunity, and also for the teachers involved. I would appreciate the Minister considering this issue.”
“Is it her ambition to move on the pupil-teacher ratio in this budget cycle and will she provide for 1,000 primary school teachers?”
“I thank the Minister. She said from November that 97% of posts were filled. In real terms at the same time, 996 teaching posts were unfilled, which is almost 1,000. Figures as recent as last week tell us that over 39,000 primary school students were in classes of 30 pupils or more in the past school year. A figure of 36,805 were in classes of 30 to 34 pupils and 2,237 were in classes of between 35 and 39 pupils. That is simply incredible in 2026 in Ireland and it has a direct impact on the type of attention children can get in the classroom. It is as simple as that. It is also contributing to the burnout for teachers. I did not hear the answer in her initial response and maybe the Minister will provide it in her next response.”
“Again, we have those figures from a briefing we had with the Department as recently as yesterday. It is all welcome progress but the question I am asking today is what is the unmet need as things stand? How many children do not have an offer of a school place? How many children have an offer of a school place but it will not be ready for September, in terms of advancing of works? It has been reported in the media this week that an extremely high number of children will not have a place for September. Many of them are taking legal cases. The Minister can confirm or deny that. I am providing her with the opportunity but she has not done it so far.”
“The Minister finished on the bit I am interested in and that I specifically asked about,. What was the latest weekly update? The information the Minister has just given me was previously provided to the House on 23 April. It is now 16 July. Does the Minister have any additional information to provide to the House as of this week?”
“I wish the staff and the Minister all the best for the summer. I know it will be a busy summer but I hope that everyone gets a break. I ask the Minister to state the number of children with additional needs who require but have yet to receive an offer of an appropriate school place for September 2026, based on her most recent meeting with the NCSE; the date of that meeting; and the measures she has taken to ensure that every child with additional needs has an appropriate school for September.”
“The Government is punishing special needs assistants, SNAs, for exercising their democratic rights. It is tearing up a local pay agreement worth 1.5% and a new special leave arrangement simply because workers rejected a separate workforce plan. There is much uncertainty, anxiety and anger about what is happening. SNAs do not know what the future holds. This move on the part of the Government is yet another insult. Will the Government reverse this reprehensible decision on local bargaining? Will it work in good faith to address the uncertainty and anxiety that exist? Will the Government side get back to the negotiating table as a matter of urgent priority in order to address the identified issues of contention and put a plan together that SNAs can support?”
“The cost-of-living crisis has not disappeared simply because the Government has stopped talking about it. Families know that every euro counts. They feel the pressure every time they buy groceries, pay a bill, or prepare their children for school. Education is a right, not a privilege. Access to learning should never depend on a parent's ability to take out a loan or put another bill on a credit card. This motion provides an opportunity for the Government to recognise the reality facing families and, importantly, to act. Sinn Féin will support it because we believe every child deserves the best possible start in life and every parent deserves a Government that stands with them rather than adding to their financial burden.”
“They are just that important to the health of our society. Sinn Féin has consistently put forward practical and costed proposals to reduce the financial burden on families. We would properly fund schools so that voluntary contributions could finally be abolished. We have introduced legislation to reduce school uniform costs by ending restrictive single-supplier arrangements that leave parents paying inflated prices. We would restore funding for ICT and provide proper support for digital devices, so that no child is disadvantaged because his or her family cannot afford expensive technology. We would expand school transport, reverse the reintroduction of State examination fees, and ensure that supports such as the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance continue to help families meet the real cost of education.”
“Parents continue to subsidise the education system through so-called voluntary contributions because schools remain chronically underfunded. Principals are struggling to cover basic costs such as heating, electricity and insurance and families should not be expected to bridge the gap. While I welcome the Labour Party bringing forward this motion, we cannot forget that much of the funding crisis in education was compounded by a Labour Party education Minister, Ruairí Quinn, who slashed funding to schools - vital capitation and grants that still have not recovered. It was a Labour Party Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton, who, among other vital supports, cut the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. Funding for schools and school-going children must be protected above practically everything else.”
“The resulting growing digital divide risks creating a two-tier education system where a family's income determines whether a child can fully participate in learning. That is completely unacceptable. The burden does not end there. The most recent cost of education survey shows parents are now paying almost €1,800 each year for a child in primary school and almost €3,000 per year for a child in secondary school. Even more worrying is that the number of parents taking loans to cover these costs has doubled in just one year. That should be a wake-up call for the Government. Instead of easing the pressure, this Government has reintroduced State examination fees, increased school transport charges and reduced a range of cost-of-living supports for schools and for families.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I thank the Labour Party for bringing it forward. The cost of sending children to school has become increasingly unacceptable. Education should be the great equaliser but for too many families the start of the school year brings anxiety, stress and impossible financial decisions. No parent should have to worry about whether they can afford a school uniform, a so-called voluntary contribution or, increasingly, an expensive digital device simply to ensure their child can participate fully in class. Digital devices alone cost hundreds of euro - up to €800. The Government insists they are not needed and not mandatory but guidance without enforcement offers no comfort at all.”
“I appreciate that but I have to say that understandably, the community in Dunshaughlin feels as though there were missed opportunities in the past with regard to our RRDF funding and that a huge amount is riding on the next application. We certainly will be making the case to Meath County Council and to the Minister himself that this funding application be successful, because it is an excellent one. In the wider context, there is a long list of priorities in terms of amenities in the public realm and in other areas such as active travel and transportation. Will the Minister's review of the town centre first policy look at how to integrate the funding streams for towns to ensure all these policy objectives align with one another?”
“I welcome the work of the Dunshaughlin town team, which has produced the town centre first plan that is very comprehensive. I have participated in some of the consultations, and my colleague, Councillor Fionnan Blake, is on the town team. There was tremendous engagement at the launch recently in the pastoral centre, which would say that the level of commitment from the local community, their interest and ambition for their own place is there in absolute spades. People from all different backgrounds, from those who are new to Dunshaughlin to those who have been there a lifetime, contributed to this. The question then is how to turn this into a reality. The vision is there but the question regarding the funding stream will be the next one asked. When is it going to happen?”
“As we hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, we should champion a modern copyright framework that protects creators, ensures transparency, delivers fair remuneration, and gives artists meaningful control over how their work is used. Art is not simply data to be harvested. It is the product of human imagination, lived experience, hard work, and skill. It reflects our communities, language, history and future. If we value Irish culture, we must value the people who create it. I urge all TDs to support this motion and to stand with Ireland's artists.”
“For many artists, copyright is not an abstract legal principle; it is their income. It is how they pay their rent, support their families, and continue creating, yet individual artists are expected to take on some of the biggest technology companies in the world to defend their rights. This is neither fair nor realistic. The warnings are coming from every corner of the creative sector. The Irish Music Rights Organisation, IMRO, the Irish Writers Union, Irish Equity, the Screen Composers Guild, the Irish Creative Industries Forum and many others have called for action. International organisations representing creators have warned that AI could place billions of euro of creative income at risk over the coming years. Ireland now has an opportunity to lead.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and thank Teachta Ó Snodaigh for his work on it, on behalf of the arts in Ireland and further afield. The motion stands up for the people who created the books, music, films and art that we enjoy and sometimes do not enjoy. That is so important to our very essence. AI has many legitimate and beneficial uses, and many people, including artists, use it as a tool. The issue before us this evening is much simpler. Irish artists deserve fairness. Today, the copyrighted work of writers, musicians, performers, filmmakers and visual artists is being used to train powerful AI systems without their consent and without payment. Those systems can then generate content that competes directly with the very people whose creativity made them possible. This is completely wrong.”
“Its call for a strengthened planning framework and an all-island strategy for sports infrastructure deserves serious consideration. We should also maximise the use of existing facilities by supporting greater community access to school sports grounds. Planning legislation should not simply facilitate development. It should create sustainable, liveable communities where families have access to the facilities they need from day one. That is the standard the Bill should meet. It is the standard that communities in Meath and across Ireland have every right to expect.”
“Local authorities need both the certainty of funding and the statutory powers to deliver projects without unnecessary delay. Sinn Féin has consistently argued that community infrastructure, including green spaces, should be recognised as a core element of every development plan, not an optional extra. Through our Delivering Liveable Urban Spaces policy and our proposed ciste beithe, we have outlined practical measures to accelerate investment in pitches, playgrounds, public parks and open spaces while ensuring communities have a genuine voice throughout the planning process. The same applies to transport, education and other community, public and critical infrastructure. I welcome the recent GAA report No One Shouted Stop - Until Now, which highlights the enormous pressure demographic growth is placing on sporting facilities.”
“It is a system that places private interests ahead of the public good. If the Bill is to make a meaningful difference, it must strengthen the planning framework to ensure community facilities are delivered alongside housing, not years later or, worse still, not at all. Mandatory sequencing should become the norm, with legally enforceable requirements linking residential development to the delivery of parks, playgrounds and sporting facilities. Earlier today, I welcomed a wonderful group of women from Teach Mná in Ashbourne to Leinster House. They highlighted other infrastructure deficits, including in transport. They are absolutely right. Development levies must be protected and ring-fenced for the infrastructure they were intended to fund.”
“They bought homes, raised families and built communities, yet local and central government failed to ensure that the essential public amenities those communities depended upon were provided. That failure has left children without places to play, sports clubs struggling for facilities and growing communities without the green spaces they deserve. The fundamental problem is that our planning system remains fragmented and reactive. The Bill before us does little to address that. Too much depends on informal arrangements between developers and local authorities, with little accountability when commitments are not honoured. Developers receive permission to build, houses are occupied and all too often the promised community infrastructure never materialises. That is not good planning.”
“The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026 provides another opportunity to address long-standing failures in how we plan and deliver our communities. While legislation can amend processes and procedures, it must also confront the reality experienced by families across the country, in particular in rapidly growing counties like Meath. For too long, our planning system has treated community infrastructure as an afterthought. I am not convinced this legislation will improve things. Houses have been built in huge numbers but the parks, playgrounds, pitches and other community facilities that make places liveable have too often been delayed, downsized or simply never delivered. The people of Meath kept their side of the bargain.”
“There are 220,000 people in County Meath and there are 323 gardaí. Whatever way we cut it up, rural or urban, and the division between them, that is nowhere near enough. I have two specific points. Some of it is the responsibility of the Garda Commissioner. The resource allocation model has to be reflective of the growing population and of the demands in the community. One of the issues is the number of training stations. The number of stations that new recruits can actually be deployed to is limited. That has to be reviewed. The Minister of State has a target set out, and she referenced the annual service plan, of 14,820 sworn gardaí by the end of the year. Will she hit that target?”
“As regards those figures, it is 323 gardaí in Meath compared with 335 in 2020. The current figures are up a little bit on last year but, compared with 2009 and 2010, we have seen practically no increase. At the same time, we have had a very significant increase in population. The Minister of State outlined the type of consideration the Garda Commissioner makes in terms of allocation of resources, and one of them is local population and trends, and geographical area and size. There must be no weight on that consideration, if County Meath is anything to go by. What efforts will the Minister of State make to bring County Meath up the ranking tables in terms of the number of gardaí per population, so that it is at least commensurate with other counties of a similar size?”
“The Government must demand action to restructure the energy market and draw a line in the sand against any proposals that roll back workers' rights or environmental standards. Ireland is a neutral country. The EU was not imagined as a military alliance. Our Presidency must draw a clear distinction between EU and NATO business, and there must be no meetings of any military alliance on Irish soil. This must be an active, ambitious and proudly Irish Presidency, one that champions unity, defence and neutrality and fights for a social Europe. To do anything else would betray the trust of the Irish people.”
“The North should be represented, and Government must ensure the active participation of the Assembly and Executive in events and advocate for observer status for Northern representatives. This Presidency must be a force for peace. The EU has lost immense credibility in its response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Ireland must use its leadership role to build alliances and move the EU. We must push for immediate recognition of the State of Palestine, an EU-wide arms embargo on Israel and the full suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The EU must be a beacon for peace, not a bystander or active participant in atrocity. Crucially, this must be a social Presidency. While Brussels talks of deregulation and competition, Irish families are crippled by the highest energy prices in Europe.”
“Ireland's EU Presidency is not an exercise in mere administration; it is a significant political opportunity, and this Government must not squander it. A Presidency that prioritises optics over action would be an abdication of our responsibility to the Irish people and to the future of our Continent. As we mark a decade since the North voted to remain in the EU, our Presidency must be anti-partitionist in word. The Brexit process was imposed on the people of the North against their democratic will. The Good Friday Agreement provides for Irish unity, and the EU Council confirmed that a united Ireland would automatically rejoin. The Irish Government must weave the preparation for reunification into the heart of its Presidency, and we must begin the groundwork for a smooth and democratic transition.”
“Private providers have come and gone but still, there is no building or crèche. This is precisely the kind of gap that the State-led scheme is supposed to fill. Recent responses were repeated by the Minister again tonight. The Minister said that capital funding will be used to acquire or fit out the building, or both, depending on requirements. In the case of the Willows, there is no building to acquire or fit out. I call on the Minister to work with local not-for-profit groups to deliver State-led early years services at the Willows in Dunshaughlin.”
“The Government announced a €135 million investment in State-led early learning and childcare. It is an initiative that promises to deliver thousands of publicly owned places by 2030. The principle is sound and significant but it has to deliver. I want, tonight, to insist that this promise must be delivered in County Meath. The Department's own analysis confirms that demand for childcare remains higher than available supply in certain parts of the country. Nowhere is this more acute than in County Meath. Dunshaughlin is a case in point. The Willows estate in Dunshaughlin now has more than 1,000 homes. When they first started selling houses there almost a decade ago, they did so with the promise of a community with essential services and amenities. Central to this was the provision of a crèche. The land is there, ready and waiting.”
“The question has been asked, where to from here? Obviously, we have a rushed piece of legislation here now. It will go to the Seanad. The Minister of State might indicate in her response whether she has any intention of accepting any amendments or bringing forward amendments herself or whether there is more primary legislation to come. We are dealing with the legislation now. It has been on the horizon for quite some time. The Government should do a far better job in relation to it. The point that has been well made at this stage that the opportunity should have been provided, if the Minister of State and the Government were intent on providing the best piece of legislation, to hear from the AI committee and for scrutiny of the Bill through all of its Stages in these Houses.”
“It is reasonable to ask what, if any, pre-legislative scrutiny deliberations or recommendations are reflected in the Bill. At this stage, there are 74 amendments here. We will be lucky to get through five or six of them. Is the Minister of State going to accept any of them or is this exercise a fait accompli , as was the experience in the previous two Bills? What does that say? In fairness, all of us here are engaging in good faith. We recognise the importance of this legislation and we are trying to improve it. Members from the Opposition and the Minister of State's own Government colleagues are submitting amendments in the same vein, essentially making the same point that we need to strengthen the governance here and look at the expertise, or the range of interests and expertise, of board members.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on Committee Stage. The point has been made about the process. There are two issues, one of which is the rushed nature of it. It is not that long ago that we were speaking on Second Stage here and the Committee Stage amendments deadline had already passed at that stage. There are 74 amendments. There would have been more. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the Government to rush through really important legislation. It is not even uncommon today. This is the third piece of legislation in the last number of hours that has been rushed through. That is the aspect about that process and the opportunity for scrutiny. In fairness, both the Government and Opposition are contributing to the legislation, which is not something we always see. There are amendments from Government TDs.”
“Regardless of whether the Minister accepts that amendment, that needs to happen. There is a wafer-thin commitment from the DAA that that will happen. It needs to happen. The DAA gave that commitment at the last transport committee and again during pre-legislative scrutiny. I call on the Minister to reflect on the amendments that have been submitted here and to understand exactly where they are coming from. They seek to strengthen this legislation. I strongly believe that there is significant room for improvement on this Bill.”
“The Minister will have heard, and I certainly have heard as a constituency TD in Meath East, that from the minute the north runway opened, there was an unmitigated disaster and a level of incompetence that I just find incredible, where houses were noise-insulated on the basis that planes would be flying over their homes, only to realise that the houses that were insulated were not on a flight path while the houses that were not insulated were on a flight path. That incredible, farcical, ridiculous situation continues. There are really good people who are committed to the aviation sector who want to see Dublin Airport grow sustainably, who are employed in the aviation sector, and who have literally out how the situation can be improved. We have submitted amendments to call for an independent assessment of the flight paths.”
“Our specific amendment was that such a comprehensive assessment would look at the wider implications. If the passenger cap is lifted but matters carry on regardless, there is potentially unsustainable development, impacts on the economy and the environment, and a compounding of regional imbalances. A number of others have mentioned that. That is something that I think the Minister needs to take away and consider again. Regardless of his position on the passenger cap and the need to lift it, there is a very strong case, as a matter of good practice, for carrying out a study such as that. The consultancy company that carried out the work relating to Schiphol Airport was CE Delft. The Minister needs to reconsider the idea. We have proposed an independent assessment of the flight paths at Dublin Airport.”
“Practically all of the amendments, certainly from us in Sinn Féin, sought to address those weaknesses in the Bill but also concerns in the local community and more widely, including among people with an interest in the sustainable growth of Dublin Airport, in balanced regional development and in the development of the Irish economy. One of the amendments, which came up at a pre-legislative scrutiny hearing that I attended, was a very reasonable ask, one that is literally being done elsewhere. It was for a comprehensive assessment of what lifting the passenger cap at Dublin Airport - increasing the number of flights into and out of Dublin Airport - would mean for the island economy. A steady-state study was done of Schiphol Airport. It would be a logical step to take in advance of lifting the passenger cap.”
“Instead, it looks like the Government wants to quickly lift the passenger cap, give significant powers to the Minister and march on regardless, paying no attention to flight paths that were never intended or provided for but have been questioned since the very second they came into being and that technically, in the words of the DAA not just at this transport committee, but the previous transport committee, are actively under reconsideration, although there is no timeline for that. It is similar with regard to night-time flights, compliance with planning, being a good neighbour, the operation of the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority, ANCA, and its independence, and noise monitoring and mitigation. For me, it is wholly unacceptable that none of that is being addressed in this Bill.”
“People understand the logic of growing the airport in a sustainable way but they also live with what they would see as essentially an airport and airlines that are given free rein, with complete disregard of their neighbours, responsibilities and the types of obligations on individual households and other businesses and they wonder why there is a different set of rules for the DAA and several airlines. I would have thought this legislation would be a good opportunity to address some of those concerns.”
“Recent controversies within the DAA were allowed to go on for months and years, causing significant reputational damage to the State's aviation sector, yet we did not see the Minister act to bring them to an end. It is an incredibly loose and vague line, is subject to significant challenge and is reflective of a real looseness within this legislation. Regardless of one's position on the passenger cap, and I live in and represent a constituency that is not far from the airport, many people understand that it was of its time and maybe is not the most logical thing for road capacity. It is also ignored on an annual basis.”
“Others have made the point regarding the two-hour debate in which we will get through only a fraction of the amendments. In his response the Minister might indicate whether he is going to accept any of the amendments or whether this is another exercise in futility. I support amendment No. 12 in the name of Deputy Ahern, and I thank him for bringing it forward. It is indicative of the type of change that needs to happen in this legislation. As it stands, the line, "the international reputation of the State in respect of air transport," is vague. It is unclear what counts as a risk to the international reputation of the State, so it could be used freely for any ministerial order. Removing the line ensures the Minister's power is not limitless.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I specifically support amendment No. 12 which, along with several other amendments, aims to tighten up this legislation. It is a very frustrating experience for those who are part of this process and who are trying to contribute positively to it and to influence, shape and improve Government legislation. Many people engaged in good faith, not just in these Chambers but also communities and representative and stakeholder groups at pre-legislative scrutiny. I would say very many of them do not see their contributions reflected in the legislation produced. Many of them, myself included, wonder whether the legislation changed a jot based on the pre-legislative scrutiny contributions.”
“These mechanisms may include any administrative, legal, financial or other processes that can assist Government in its consideration of the issue of redress and how any scheme to be considered might be funded by those responsible for schools where sexual abuse occurred. We do not know what will come of this review but time is of the essence and we cannot countenance any unnecessary delay. Most importantly, this cannot be a case of tinkering at the edges. This has to be ambitious and aggressive in its pursuit of what is right; that those who perpetrated these harms are held accountable. It is a matter of justice. Any future redress scheme must be funded properly by those responsible and this Bill is a helpful tool to achieve that. I urge all sides of the House to support its passage.”
“The Government should allow this Bill to progress, with no six-month delay. If there are technical concerns, they can be addressed in committee. What cannot be countenanced is further obstruction or delay. It is incumbent on the Government to facilitate the Bill's scrutiny through the relevant Oireachtas sectoral committee. This is a reasonable request. The interdepartmental group, IDG, is examining redress for historical sexual abuse in schools. In recent responses to me, the Minister for education said that the IDG is examining the mechanisms that can be brought to bear to ensure that any future redress scheme is appropriately funded by those who were responsible for the schools where child sexual abuse took place.”
“The core of this Bill is about ending that evasion. It will allow civil proceedings to be brought directly against unincorporated bodies and remove the absurd legal barrier that has prevented survivors from suing organisations directly. Importantly, it provides a mechanism to access the assets of associated trusts, preventing orders from hiding behind complex structures to avoid their responsibilities. This aligns with Sinn Féin's stated position that everything must be on the table, including legal action and the seizure of assets, to ensure these institutions, orders and organisations contribute to redress. For too long, the Government has offered only tea and sympathy. The State has failed survivors in their early years and has continued to fail them in their later years. Today, we have a chance to right a wrong.”
“I recognise that these issues are complex but when I hear complexity, I hear a bureaucratic governmental language that serves only to delay. Let us act with haste here and pursue these issues aggressively to deliver justice. That is not to do a disservice to the complexity of them at all. The Bill before us is a direct response to repeated failures by the State to compel religious orders and other unincorporated bodies to pay their fair share. It is a further stain on this Government that it has taken so long to act. Successive Administrations have failed to hold these institutions accountable, leaving survivors to navigate a labyrinth of legal obstacles while religious orders engaged in legal and financial manoeuvring to shield their assets, which, I believe, is a deliberate conscious decision on their part.”
“Another amendment I proposed at that time was commensurate compensation from religious orders, that "Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall prepare a comprehensive plan to deliver commensurate compensation from Religious Orders, this to include a consideration of every avenue of recourse and a timeline of engagements and actions, in pursuit of the public good.". That was an amendment that we proposed, but the Government had other plans. Those plans serve only to delay and deny. I listened to the Minister. I do not know if he was going for a record in terms of mentioning the word "complex" in one Dáil statement. I am not legally qualified. I think I am the first person to speak on this so far who is not legally qualified.”