Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire
Cork South-Central · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“That is important and the Minister and I share that view, much as we disagree on how it is not right to get rid of the triple lock. We have made that very clear and we think there is scope to deploy on peacekeeping missions elsewhere.”
“As I probably will not get more questions and it is my last contribution before the recess, I wish to take the opportunity to thank the staff of this institution and the Ceann Comhairle's office, who serve us so well.”
“We have all probably been guilty of the offence of going over time at different stages, I am sure. Despite our disagreements in relation to the triple lock, I think the Minister and I agree that peacekeeping missions are important.”
“In the context of the previous question, I submitted another question that was ruled out of order, which is fair enough. I probably did not word my question as precisely as Deputy Gibney worded hers. I record my concern about legal representation in that regard. It is important to say that. This question relates to another welfare issue.”
“The Minister said that she is not pushing anybody to the courts. I am not a doctor and cannot make a clinical decision, but if people suffered negative health outcomes that they believe have a connection to their clinical exposure, and they have never taken a case, how precisely is the Government going to help them?”
“The Minister talks about the need to ensure that Defence Forces personnel have the ability to deploy internationally and are not prevented from participating in rescue missions. I have no problem at all with head No. 7. Actually, most of the legislation is fine. It is just head No.”
The complete record
Every one of 902 lines we hold for Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 19.
“It seems to me as if there does not seem to be a desire on the part of the Minister or her Department to explore the existing peacekeeping missions, even though there are multiples of them. I know we have small representations on some of them but there are several that we have no relationship with at this moment in time. I think there is capacity and it would be to the benefit of those locations to have experienced peacekeeping personnel, given our track record and the esteem in which we are held, and also to the benefit of our Defence Forces.”
“As I probably will not get more questions and it is my last contribution before the recess, I wish to take the opportunity to thank the staff of this institution and the Ceann Comhairle's office, who serve us so well. To be fair, I will also thank the officials of the Department of Defence for their co-operation over the course of the past year. They are not necessarily listening but I thank the officials of the Department of foreign affairs and the Minister's team on that side as well. I thank the Minister, who should be acknowledged for her co-operation at various stages. Returning to the question, we raised this in committee with the Minister a number of weeks ago. I am concerned that all of our eggs are in the one basket but if we remove the triple lock, then we will have more options.”
“Unfortunately, the conflict situations around those remain tense and require a peacekeeping presence. There is potential scope in those missions as well as in some of the other western and southern Asian locations.”
“That is important and the Minister and I share that view, much as we disagree on how it is not right to get rid of the triple lock. We have made that very clear and we think there is scope to deploy on peacekeeping missions elsewhere. We would like to see the UN and the manner in which it works reformed significantly, not just in relation to peacekeeping. There is significant scope for reform there. I hope that there is going to be a list in the written response I receive to this question. The Minister gave a few examples. It is important that we understand the picture that is out there right across the world. There are five or six missions in Africa. Have we explored deploying to those? A lot of them are very long-standing missions, with some going back several decades and most looking as if they are there for the long term.”
“We have all probably been guilty of the offence of going over time at different stages, I am sure. Despite our disagreements in relation to the triple lock, I think the Minister and I agree that peacekeeping missions are important. They matter to the world, the communities in which they are located and the regions but they also matter to the development and progression of Defence Forces personnel. It is part of what people sign up for. There are currently 11 direct UN peacekeeping missions, with more under Chapter VIII, but this question primarily relates to the direct missions. There is now, with the ending of UNIFIL, greater capacity to consider additional UN missions in different locations across Europe, western Asia and southern Asia. Have we responded to requests from the UN?”
“The State can assist people with their medical requirements and can provide ex gratia payments. It can provide a number of different things without accepting legal liability. The Minister knows that because her previous Department, the Department of education, has done it numerous times. The Department of children has done it numerous times - usually under political pressure, but it has done it. There is nothing to stop the Minister doing it. This is not going away. How is the Minister going to address the needs of those people who were exposed to these chemicals - and this is the key detail - who have not taken cases or made a claim against the State? How is the Minister going to help those people?”
“The Minister said that she is not pushing anybody to the courts. I am not a doctor and cannot make a clinical decision, but if people suffered negative health outcomes that they believe have a connection to their clinical exposure, and they have never taken a case, how precisely is the Government going to help them? They are not going to be able to engage with the State Claims Agency unless they have made claims and gone to the courts. They are not going to be able to engage with the State Claims Agency unless they have made a claim and gone to the courts. None of this is necessary. We know what happens in Australia and the Netherlands, and in other areas of this State. Of course, every case and category is different, but the same principle applies.”
“The point is that when enough pressure comes on, the State eventually remembers - and it knows, in truth - that it does not have to do everything through the courts. If a category of people have had wrong done to them, the State has other measures available without even accepting legal liability. The Minister knows that. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from looking after the health needs of these men and women. She knows that perfectly well.”
“These types of issues of collective harm, collective abuse in some instances and collective injury are things that the State does badly. We can see it. The Minister previously served as Minister for education. We have seen many examples in that area. The response of the State is always to tell people that they can go through the courts. If people do not go to the courts, there is an issue with that. We set up redress schemes and if people do not make a claim within a certain timeframe, they are excluded. We have the recent example of the women who attended Dunderrow National School. Women who were in the same class as Louise O'Keeffe were prevented from bringing forward redress.”
“In the context of the previous question, I submitted another question that was ruled out of order, which is fair enough. I probably did not word my question as precisely as Deputy Gibney worded hers. I record my concern about legal representation in that regard. It is important to say that. This question relates to another welfare issue. I will keep raising this issue. There is scope for the Department to take action here. It can look after the people affected without in any way conflicting with legal cases. I do not want to hear about legal cases. I know the Minister is going to talk about them anyway. Ultimately, the Department can make health and redress interventions without in any way undermining those court cases. Airport personnel were put at risk by chemicals.”
“-----that the decisions in the Lisbon and Nice referendums were based on things such as the Seville Declaration. I expect that many people changed their minds because they were given reassurances. Those reassurances are now disappearing into dust because of the policy of the Government.”
“If she does, why does she not put the matter to a referendum, given that this was the basis on which many people were asked to vote in the Nice and Lisbon referendums? This matter was central to those referendums. The Minister knows quite clearly-----”
“The Minister said it would be on the same basis as it is currently, when that is plainly not the case. She is getting rid of the requirement for a UN mandate. I will tell the Minister who I do not trust. I do not trust the likes of NATO-aligned organisations such as Partnership for Peace. Frankly, given the trajectory of their political positioning on the Middle East, there are many people at the top of the EU that I do not trust in terms of their foreign policy objectives, given the cover they gave to Israel in recent years in the context of the genocide. I do trust the Defence Forces and I do trust the people of this country. I ask the Minister whether she trusts the people of this country to make the decision.”
“The Minister talks about the need to ensure that Defence Forces personnel have the ability to deploy internationally and are not prevented from participating in rescue missions. I have no problem at all with head No. 7. Actually, most of the legislation is fine. It is just head No. 8 that is a fundamental problem and a fundamental change. That is recognised by the Minister’s coalition partners, or at least all apart from two or three at the top of that political party. They are very concerned because they know this will potentially constrain our ability to have an independent foreign policy as it undermines our neutrality. Perhaps the Minister might conclude that it does not end it in the final assessment, but it does undermine it potentially.”
“No other country had a vote on the Defence Acts in the 1960s. No other country had a vote on the Defence Acts in 2006. No other country will have a vote on this Defence (Amendment) Bill. It will be decided here. These are the tests that we set sovereignly in this Parliament. That is all about it. All of this craic is neither here nor there. These are our decisions about where we see fit to deploy Irish personnel. That is ultimately what this is about. All the objects that the Government talks about achieving, such as that the world is changing or we need to invest in our defence, are not prevented by the triple lock. We should invest in our defence. We should be strong on neutrality and strong on defence. I absolutely agree with that.”
“The triple lock neutrality protection is deeply valued by the Irish people. It was the basis on which the Irish people were encouraged to vote for European referendums, on the basis that the Irish people value their neutrality and an independent foreign policy. The Government proposes to get rid of the triple lock. It is not reform; it is not change - it is getting rid of the triple lock. Ultimately, a Government that commands a majority will be in a position to deploy troops to any international force as it sees fit. There is growing concern about that, including in these Houses. I ask the Minister for an update on the legislation.”
“The cost families are facing are absolutely bananas, and real action needs to be taken, especially in terms of uniforms but also digital devices. Voluntary contributions are absolutely Dickensian. We have parents fundraising to keep the lights on. Schools do not get enough money to actually run, and it is not acceptable. We need a lot more action. Education is not free in this country.”
“We look at these costs which could be cut in half if we were actually enforcing the guidelines. We need some kind of enforcement mechanism. The sew-on or print-on emblems on uniforms would make a huge difference to parents. We need to ensure an enforcement mechanism. Parents, like the women I mentioned, will get the uniform and stationery, have their holiday, if they can afford one, and come back in September and get the letters. These are DEIS schools yet this parent could be looking at fees for the two schools - there are two kids in primary school and one in secondary - of maybe €400. That is even before, in some circumstances, families deal with costs around tablets that could total €500, €600, or €800.”
“The summer is meant to be a time that families get some respite, a chance to de-stress and so on but very often, for a lot of families, it is as stressful as any other time of year as they are trying to deal with massive costs. I looked at a receipt a while ago from a mother of three kids, two in primary school and one in secondary, all in DEIS schools. The receipt was for one trip to the uniform shop. It was for a total of €348.50 and she told me that on top of that, the family has bought €70 worth of trousers and shirts, and that is before they get three sets of shoes, stationery for two, and bags for two. The tracksuit, made by a well-known branded company, cost €55, and the family spent €30 on a wool jumper, which incidentally, causes a lot of sensory issues for an awful lot of kids.”
“Not agreed. I was horrified by the decision of An Coimisiún Pleanála on Thursday, but if I was horrified, I can only imagine the level of distress, trauma and anger that survivors and their relatives felt. There is an enormous appetite to debate this. It is important that we have a debate. The Taoiseach has talked about and defended the independence of An Coimisiún Pleanála. That is not disputed. The reality is that the State still retains the ability to acquire the site voluntarily or through compulsory purchase order. It is important that we have a debate. I am asking for statements and questions and answers on Bessborough.”
“There is also scope for a purchase scheme by which the Irish Government or the European Commission would purchase the alumina and sell it to new buyers that are not part of the Russian war effort. Are discussions happening at European level, either at the Council or otherwise?”
“I will ask two questions and the Minister of State can take them together. While we are not saying it needs to be the number one priority, a couple of Deputies have mentioned the opportunity for the Presidency to be a vehicle to discuss Irish unity and how the EU can be a part of that. The slogan of the Presidency is "strength through unity", ní neart go cur le chéile. If any unity is a priority for us as a political party and for many other Deputies, it is that unity. There is an opportunity. In relation to Aughinish Alumina, there is a solution here that ensures we end the flow of alumina to the Russian war effort and protect the jobs. In the negotiations and engagements the Minister of State and Irish officials have had at the European Council, what is on the table? Some leaked reports have talked about nationalisation.”
“While the conference earlier this year was welcome, the EU needs to do more than just provide humanitarian assistance. Ultimately, it needs to be part of a political solution and end the flow of weapons that continues uninhibited.”
“Their jobs need to be protected and that is the reason we have supported the amendments in the European Parliament today regarding ending the exports of alumina to Russia. We welcome the fact that the European Parliament is taking an interest in this issue. However, it is hypocritical that we cannot apply the same standards or urgency to arms exports to Israel or banning trade with illegal settlements. Clearly, that needs to be escalated, particularly the issue of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. It is still the case that we are reading daily reports of civilians being killed in Gaza. Five or six people are killed every single day, including children and medical professionals. It makes a mockery of the notion that there is a ceasefire. I welcome reference to Sudan in the Taoiseach's statement. It is vitally important.”
“To pick up on some of the international issues in the Taoiseach's speech, I will take this opportunity to once again condemn the attacks on Kyiv in recent days that resulted in the deaths of many civilians. It is a clear demonstration of the war of aggression that has been waged by Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. There was a vote today in relation to Aughinish Alumina and exports to Russia. We cannot have a situation where profits can flow to a country violating international law in relation to products potentially aiding the Russian war effort. The Government should not be passive bystanders. It should use its position to ensure the EU steps in and purchases the alumina. The workers of Aughinish do not make export decisions.”
“I would never have realised that there are 2,000 adults with an intellectual disability with parents over 70 years of age, and 300 of them are in Cork, with 500 across the State with parents over 80. Some of the circumstances we hear of are heartbreaking. I have heard of cases where people were advised by people in the HSE that if they are in a crisis situation to bring their child to the emergency department and it will resolve itself from there. This should be the most carefully handled sensitive transition and effectively people are being asked to go with a sudden rupture. It is completely unacceptable. It is a profound failure. What parent would want that for their child? It is not good enough. We need to do better. The congregated settings policy may have come from a good place but we are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
“Go raibh maith agat. Like many, I have engaged with the Before We Die campaign. The meeting I attended in Cork was one of the most powerful and affecting meetings I have ever attended. It was troubling as well but the fierce love of these parents was obvious. At the end of the day, they want to care for their children as long as they can but they are deeply frustrated. I want to acknowledge the fact that a lot of progress has been made by the group in Cork. I acknowledge Deputies Quaide and O’Sullivan who have been working with the city and county councils which have adopted a positive attitude and is making progress on a local level, to be fair. However, the numbers are absolutely enormous.”
“I put it to Micheál Martin. This is the vehicle we have put forward for planning and preparing constitutional change. Where is his? If he is not going to accept what we are bringing forward, what does he propose? He must show us that he is serious about planning, preparing and doing that work.”
“However, it is cloth-eared to suggest that planning for constitutional change in line with the Good Friday Agreement is in any way in conflict with that. I welcome the shared island initiative. That is a good and sensible thing but it is explicitly, in the Taoiseach’s own words, not a vehicle for planning constitutional change. After listening to the speeches across the Chamber today and talking to colleagues, to be honest, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that we would not even have a division tonight, except for the views of one man.”
“In reality, the approach of the Irish Government tonight is to take no positive action to plan and prepare for Irish unity. Nobody is saying this is happening overnight. This is about the process and about understanding and answering all of the very questions the Taoiseach and other colleagues have posed. That is what this process is for. That is profoundly reckless, careless and unserious. We do not have to look far for the consequences of unplanned constitutional change. Yet while failing to prepare and plan is reckless, a united Ireland is profoundly exciting. I believe in Irish unity because I believe it can transform Irish society and improve the lives of all of our people, North and South. I agree with all of what has been said regarding reconciliation and I want a united Ireland that respects all traditions and is generous.”
“I listened to the Taoiseach’s speech earlier and I have to confess that I am still trying to figure out which Bill he was responding to because it certainly was not this one. It was the Taoiseach’s single transferable speech on this matter - familiar, hackneyed, complacent and unserious. It asked us to imagine a process much less careful and less thoughtful than what is proposed and to ignore the dynamics on the ground and the fact that this is a live debate, North and South, east and west and internationally. It seems that the only people who do not wish to participate in this debate are the Irish Government. The Taoiseach has a vision of himself as patient and prudent. I consider that a fiction. On this issue, I consider it a grotesque fiction.”
“This amendment has the intention of ensuring there is a set timeframe, which is quite a reasonable one, to ensure the Government brings forward the appropriate list and, subsequently, within three months of that, the section is commenced. It is quite a reasonable and not an unusual provision. In many forms of legislation, there is a timed date in terms of commencement.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 4, line 14, to delete “may” and substitute “shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this section”. We had a considerable discussion on this. Ultimately, the Minister on Committee Stage said an order designating postal codes was being drafted and would be moved immediately. We appreciate that it is the position of the Government that it wants to do this as quickly as possible but the world is a changeable place and governments can be changeable in terms of their attitudes and approaches. Who knows what circumstances might arise to cause a Government to decide that now is not the opportune time to ensure this legislation is enacted, that the section should not be commenced and that the ban not be commenced on foot of that.”
“There are so many contradictions with the position of the Government. On the one hand, the Government is saying that it was able to act only because of the ICJ decision, although I am not sure that is the case. We could have acted anyway. Yet, that very ICJ decision calls for a ban on goods and services. The Government is saying "No" to imposing a ban on services even though the whole basis of us moving forward was the ICJ decision. There is this contradiction of saying that we can interfere in trade with EU countries, with a public policy exemption, but we cannot do so with non-EU jurisdictions. Another contradiction is saying that the Spanish have done it by using a broad degree of language and so forth but we cannot do likewise. Ultimately, Spain is over the line. It can be done.”
“Picking up on the point Deputy Gibney made, Article 23.9 of the Constitution commits Ireland to accepting the principle of international law, “... as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.”. We have a situation where the Department of foreign affairs - the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy McEntee - is bringing in this legislation in full knowledge of what the Department itself accepted that the only reasonable reading of the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required. The Government, by implication, has said that it is moving towards compliance or partial compliance. Therefore, it is not ultimately compliant with the decision. If we are to be consistent with Article 23.9 of the Constitution, we should be implementing this in full.”
“The Minister of State said he did not want to rehearse all the points of the last point. The key bit, however, is that we are looking for something new. We are looking for an explanation. Ultimately, we have not gotten that explanation as to the clear legal basis we cannot proceed. I believe a satisfactory basis exists within the treaties for a public policy exemption. It is the same type of public policy exemption that we are looking for here. I do not see any reason we cannot do that. The Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, or any of the other Ministers, including the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in their public commentary, have not made it clear as to why we cannot do that. That is why it seems obvious to me that this is a political decision.”
“It has been demonstrated in Spain that international trade has not been an issue. It would still be the right thing to do in any event but it has not been an issue in that jurisdiction. I know the Minister of State will talk about advertising of services being in the Spanish language and all that kind of thing. That really does not cut it. The bottom line is that the Spanish have brought this over the line. We could legislate for this. The basis for it exists in the treaties. We should do it because it is the right thing to do but a political decision has been taken not to do it. That is the long and the short of it.”
“Excluding services is a watering down and taking the teeth out of this legislation in terms of what could and should have been done and what was promised during the course of the last general election, when every political party said it would implement the occupied territories Bill. At that stage, in any engagement Senator Black had with the Department, nobody was saying there was any legal difficulty. It was stated that there were technical issues that needed to be worked on but nobody was saying it was impossible to do this. Nobody ever said that, including during the election. Now we are being told it is impossible to do but we are kind of not being told that as well. Any time the Taoiseach talks about it, he touches on that and then he moves on to international trade.”
“No infringement proceedings have started, the sky has not fallen in and there have been no issues in terms of the many multinational companies, including American companies, that operate in Spain. None of those things has happened. The Spanish have legislated on advertising of services, thereby bringing themselves into the same realm the Government and the State would be in if we ensured this legislation amounted to a ban on services. We should ban trade in services. I think the day will come that we do so. I hope it happens at EU level but if not, this jurisdiction can still move forward in this regard.”
“If that is the case, and she acknowledges it is, why would it not be allowed to ensure the restriction of trade in services with a non-EU jurisdiction? The legal basis that is being argued scarcely exists at all. We can talk about advertising of services and so on but, ultimately, the Spanish have got this over the line. That is the long and the short of it. They may not have gone as far as I would like or people in Spain and in the Spanish Parliament and even Palestinians themselves would like but, at the end of the day, in terms of infringement proceedings and coherence with EU law, they are over the line. They have interfered with trade in services. The same risks applied to Spain acting as would apply to Ireland.”
“It sustains the settlements that are such a problem, such an undermining of international law and such a violation of the rights of the Palestinian people. It is also very clear that not including services is a political decision. We heard a lot of words from the Minister, Deputy McEntee, at the committee but no clear reason has ever been given as to why, if the public policy exemption exists in one particular place, which it does in relation to trade, it cannot be applied in this case. It has not been demonstrated that it cannot rely on the relevant sections of the treaties. The Minister has acknowledged that it would allow for restriction of trade in services to another EU country, which should actually have a higher bar.”
“Too often, the atrocities we have seen, including tens of thousands of people killed, the deliberate refusal of access to humanitarian aid, the starving of funding of the Palestinian Authority, the deliberate targeting of journalists and the abduction of nationals from across the world, including Irish nationals, on the high seas, all point to Israel being able to act with impunity. This is a small but meaningful measure to state that international law does apply. We have an International Court of Justice decision that states very clearly that trade with the illegal settlements is illegal. That includes goods and services. Plainly, trade in services is just as morally wrong as trade in goods. It is against all the advice of the Minister's Department, as things stand, and the Department of enterprise.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 4, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: ""settlement service" means a service provided in whole or in part within a postal code or relevant occupied territory to which this Act applies;". This is part of a series of amendments of which amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are the most substantial. This legislation matters because the settlements are part of a deliberate policy and strategy by the Israeli Government to undermine the viability of the Palestinian state. Senator Black's occupied territories Bill mattered in particular because it sought to tackle that and also because it was a demonstration that international law has to apply in full and with force and vigour.”
“There is concern that things will be unintentionally captured because they originate from within a certain postcode even though they might not be a settlement good. Related to that is the fact that the Bill relies almost entirely on postcodes rather than trying to define illegal Israeli settlements, which is the approach taken in legislation in other jurisdictions. They have a definition of what constitutes an illegal settlement and, therefore, there are two criteria by which to define them.”
“I appreciate that the response of the Minister of State a fortnight ago was to the effect that they would be travelling through a different door because settlement goods would attempt to go through the EU-Israel Association Agreement and that there is a separate agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Europe. However, the concern that was raised on Committee Stage was that, ultimately, this is a form of legislation that has a criminal sanction for breach of the Customs Act. In the event that somebody brought a complaint, our concern is that there could be unintended consequences. Does the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, have strong enough grounds to state that even though a good is from a relevant postcode, it does not count? The Bill seems to hinge very much on postcodes.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “ “Illegal settlement” means any residential area, outpost, or economic zone established, supported, protected or otherwise administered by the State of Israel, in violation of international law, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) that was brought under Israeli administration since June 1967;”. We have had a bit of discussion on this and our intentions are all the same, namely to ensure that no technical difficulty arises from goods or services being exported by Palestinians in relevant area codes or postcodes that are not settlements but rather involve Palestinians seeking to export.”
“Many regulations hinge upon it. However, what if it is not a given? That is the fundamental point. That is why having a State representative in place to monitor the trial is important. Will the Minister agree to that?”
“We can engage in correspondence. I might be mistaken but that is my understanding of the situation. In relation to prison conditions and the situation for other prisoners, the question is for what reason those other prisoners are detained. Is it appropriate that Daniel Tatlow-Devally and his co-defendants are in a prison of this kind for damaging property? That is fundamentally the charge at hand but it has escalated because the authorities are using legislation that was intended for use against organised crime. That is the context, and the question is whether his detention under those conditions is appropriate. The Minister said it needs to be a given that there be a fair trial. So many things hinge on that assumption. The question of whether countries have a fair trial system is part of the assessment process for new EU member states.”
“The Minister said all prisoners experience the same conditions. In regard to telephone calls, I outlined my understanding of the situation. If it is not the case, I accept that. My understanding is that calls are constrained in terms of times when they can happen and there have been occasions when they have been denied. I will double-check that.”
“There is a knee-jerk assumption that European countries will have fair trials, and that is fine - that is the baseline assumption in these institutions. At the end of the day, there is a concern about a fair trial. The Minister said she had raised this matter with the state secretary. What response was she given? What is Germany going to do to ensure there is a fair trial and decent conditions in advance of that?”