Gary Gannon
Dublin Central · Social Democrats · Ireland
“I will talk about that in a couple of minutes but before I do I want to come back to some of the things the Minister of State said in his opening speech, particularly the last paragraph.”
“It will create a scenario where vulnerable people will simply not be able to get up their street for potentially three days because there will be a multitude of different providers steaming up these streets, which were never created for such large vehicles.”
“Those things should not be in competition with each other. The remunicipalisation of waste is going to cost money. That is a simple fact, but public services often should operate at a loss.”
“He engaged with the evidence and with stakeholders and came to the same determination, namely, that what we have at present for waste management services, not only in Dublin but nationally, is no longer tolerable. It has led to a system that is clearly not efficient or not suitable for the purpose intended.”
“Does the Tánaiste recognise the scale of the chaos in our criminal justice system at the moment? Thousands of cases have been adjourned. Victims will await justice. Backlogs are building. We now have habeas corpus cases taking place in the High Court. The Minister referenced my flowery language.”
“I want to acknowledge Deputy Sherlock for her work in bringing forward this Bill. We in the Social Democrats will be supporting it. It is a shame that the Minister of State is not willing to engage further than to simply vote it down on the promise that a review will be released in an unspecified time.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,100 lines we hold for Gary Gannon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 22.
“I thank Sinn Féin for bringing this timely, welcome and debate-worthy motion to the Chamber. The motion asks us to do something that successive governments have failed to do, namely, treat the GPO and Moore Street as if they matter. I am not just referring to this Government but the previous one and the one before that. Going back to the 50th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising, the GPO played very little part in the celebrations, and Moore Street none at all. I understand there have been plans and court cases but I walk past the GPO and through Moore Street on most days and the impact of those plans is to be seen right in front of me as I tread the streets. The GPO is not just a landmark; it is a physical foundation of the Republic itself.”
“We can have a look. It is clearly not meeting the standard required, although there have clearly been improvements. I believe we need a different form of policing in commercial areas from that in residential areas. It requires a different strategy and a different approach, not quite a municipal police force but something similar. Residential policing and the policing of more commercial areas are different. We need community gardaí in our communities knocking on doors and introducing themselves, and we need gardaí on the streets and in commercial areas to have a different role.”
“It created a presence whereby people knew their gardaí and got the sense that the gardaí were there for them. In the decades since, that has been stripped away for a variety of reasons, which I do not want to get into now. When we lost the that, we lost our sense of gardaí in the community, tackling issues and building relationships there. We do not have this any more. The prioritisation seems to be angled towards what I refer to as the commercial city centre. I understand why this is. Two years ago, I was here speaking about the issues in that area. We need to get both right at the same time. Even though we are saying there has been an increased Garda presence in the city centre, I do not know whether the Minister has ever walked along O'Connell Street or gone over O'Connell Bridge at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m.”
“I think the Minister misunderstood what I was implying when I spoke about the increased presence of gardaí in the city centre. I was not suggesting for a second that gardaí were being taken from various Garda stations and being brought into the city centre. What I was suggesting was that perhaps there is a policy of containment of problems in residential areas such that they are not coming into commercial areas. That is the feedback I get from residents. There was an initiative in the north inner city ten or 12 years ago called the small area policing initiative. Gardaí had the responsibility to knock on people's doors and introduce themselves. They were tasked with knocking on every door in the area to introduce themselves and explain that they were the local gardaí. It worked phenomenally well.”
“Council workers have spoken about being fearful of going into Mountjoy Square because they regularly find knives stashed in the shrubbery. Open drug dealing also seems to be happening along the canal and people are fearful of walking in the area at night due to the use of electric scooters to transport drugs. The area is seen as an artery for transporting drugs. I regularly speak about the north inner city. I love the area and it is part of who I am. The issues the area is experiencing are generational and a product of the location in which the community is placed. The improved policing in the commercial city centre is really welcome, but some of the displacement factors stemming from this seem to mean that some of the issues that were there are now being tolerated in more residential parts. Is this the Minister's shared understanding?”
“The understanding is that although there is a Garda station beside the bakery, it is rarely policed or manned, and people who are up to no good have cottoned on to that fact. The Minister might not know North Frederick Street Court, an apartment complex behind the Gate Theatre and Chapter One Restaurant. Those businesses have said they are overwhelmed by the displacement of people who have been pushed out of the commercial city centre and into laneways. People should always be tolerated, but there is open drug dealing, and the violence associated with that, in North Frederick Street Court. Mountjoy Square, which for me could become the jewel in the crown of the north side, is experiencing a significant level of violence and gang-related crime.”
“We have seen an increase in open drug dealing, the intimidation that goes alongside that and antisocial behaviour. For 30 or 40 years we have heard about the containment of problems. Tony Gregory, long before I was ever in the House, used that phrase to describe parts of the city where there were issues that were tolerated in a way they would not otherwise be. I will highlight some of the emails sent to me and issues raised with me this week. Today, I received an email from a resident in the Russell Street area, alongside Croke Park. It is 150 m from Fitzgibbon Street Garda station. The person concerned referred to an increase in burglaries in the area. The Russell Street Bakery, a lovely bakery that has been frequented by new people living in the community, was burgled this week.”
“In six years of having been here and having been a regulator contributor to Topical Issue debates, this is the first time I have had a senior Minister here to respond. While I will often disagree with the Minister and we will often clash, I do not doubt for a second his dedication to the issues he is in charge of. There has unquestionably been an increase in the Garda presence in the commercial city centre of Dublin over the past six months. The Minister and his Department should be commended on that. Many retailers can see the benefits of the increased Garda presence. One consequence of that is the displacement of some of the issues in the commercial city centre, which have now been pushed into the more residential parts of the inner city.”
“Oftentimes in this Chamber, when we are operating under the shadows of a genocide, there is a hypocrisy in much of what we are bringing forward. If we do not apply the same standards to other people who are suffering, it is in contravention of our own history as an oppressed people. We should not mirror the laws of our oppressors. We also should not avert our gaze when other people are feeling the hard thumb of imperialism, and the bombs, violence and starvation that goes with it.”
“There are weapons being used in that terror, and people being mobilised to inflict that terror, who are landing in our airports, including Shannon Airport, and going off to inflict terror on children. Palestinian children also have the right to protection. Do we avert our gaze, as the Tánaiste did today, and say there is nobody involved in genocide passing through Shannon Airport? How do we know? We are certainly not doing any inspections or looking to see what is in the planes. We are not looking to see who is on them and we are certainly not taking any interest as a State in what they are doing when they leave Shannon Airport or our airspace, and go off to carry out devastation upon the population of Gaza and the West Bank.”
“I ask him to put forward legislation that will finally regulate big tech platforms, revisit the hate crime provisions that were abandoned and give An Garda Síochána the tools and training to respond effectively to the threat from far-right extremists and online radicals. The threats we face are evolving every day. The measures we adapt must evolve as well so let us have the courage to react, lead and protect every person in this State regardless of where the threat may come from. It would be a loss if I did not also use this opportunity to say that as we speak, there are people in Gaza and Palestine who are also experiencing terror in its most horrific form.”
“If we continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that combating online radicalisation and far-right mobilisation is not as urgent as combating the more traditional forms of terror, then we are failing ourselves, communities and the people who are being impacted by them as we speak. The Government has a duty to listen, act and protect, not only when it suits its agenda or involves transnational threats or when it is making statements about its role in Europe. It has a duty to act on the threat that is here at home. I ask the Minister to match the purpose of this Bill with an equal ambition to stamp out the terror that is festering online and in communities.”
“Those provisions exist and this Bill strengthens them appropriately, but extending this to ambiguous or contested notions of glorification threatens to cross a line that is vital for a free and democratic society. We cannot combat terror without preserving democratic freedoms. We must do both. I ask the Minister and the Government to revisit this provision to make sure the language is clear, precise and objective, to ensure that in trying to protect society from terror, we do not endanger the right of all people to speak, protest, express themselves and be heard. There is much in this Bill that is forward thinking when it comes to counter-terrorism law and I welcome aspects of it.”
“Those questions matter because when the line between legitimate expression and incitement is blurred, it is too easy for that line to be abused. It is important to say at this point that when I was writing that paragraph, I did not have the Minister in mind. I do not believe for a second that a Minister for justice such as him would use those laws to go after the people we are concerned about in our pages, but there will be governments after this one and after that as well. When legislation is enacted, it is not just for the current Minister but for those in the decades to come. That is why we should be fearful when we enact provisions such as these. Incitement to terrorist activity is already outlawed.”
“I understand there is a court case going on, but we are speaking in the Parliament about Irish nationals who are going to be tried for terrorist offences for calling out genocide. It is incumbent on all of us to speak about how wrong that is. The language in this provision includes such words as "glorifies", "praise" and "celebration" which are too open to interpretation. They are too subjective and reliant on a person's or authority's reading of intent. Will a song sung at a concert or match be subject to scrutiny? Will an academic article or a piece of historical commentary be treated as glorification? Will satire or art be punished because someone somewhere finds it offensive or deems it reasonable to construe it as incitement?”
“We must be vigilant that provisions such as this do not, intentionally or otherwise, give too much room for a government to characterise legitimate protest, commentary or debate as incitement. The right to speak, dissent and protest is a cornerstone of democracy. We should make sure that in tackling terrorist threats, we do not also create tools that could be used to silence those very democratic voices and norms. The reason we are saying this is that we are watching what is happening in the UK, where it is very clear what is happening to the band Kneecap. They took to the stage and called out genocide and because they did that, they have been brought to court and charged with terrorism offences. While I understand that is not the exact reason outlined in the court case, we also understand the motivation behind it.”
“I refer specifically to the new wording to be introduced in section 4A, which allows for a person to be found guilty if: with the intention of inciting....terrorist activity...[he or she] publishes, or causes to be....published...a message (ii) that "glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity and (b) such...publication gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result. Of course, we must have strong laws to stop the glorification of and incitement to terrorist acts, but we should be absolutely clear that the right to protest, speak out and hold the Government to account is absolutely vital in our democracy.”
“This brings me to a provision in the Bill that gives me serious concern, the amendment dealing with public provocation to commit terrorist offences. I listened to many of the speakers today on this same matter and there will be some overlap with my contribution. People who have contacted me and their friends, colleagues and family members understand why a measure like this needs to be confronted and tackled. They understand that, as a nation born out of conflict against an oppressor, we should not seek to mirror the oppressor’s laws.”
“If we can mobilise resources and attention, as we should, for terrorist threats outside our borders, we should not shy away from mobilising the same urgency for threats within. Our laws must evolve but so too must our priorities. We can no longer treat the online spaces that host radicalisation and hate as neutral platforms. I am conscious that this weekend we are celebrating Pride. Pride this year will be different from how Pride has been for the past ten or 15 years. Genuine terror is being experienced by people in the LGBTQI community because of the extent to which they are now being targeted online, which results in them being targeted on the streets. We have seen instances of that on the streets of Dublin and all over the country in the past year.”
“What we saw on our streets last year and continue to witness on our streets every day is an attempt to undermine the fabric of our society, our norms, our compassion, our decency and our tolerance of people who choose to live in a way that is different from how I might choose to live my life. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to confront it with the same urgency that we apply to threats from outside our borders. We owe it to victims, to every person who has felt afraid to walk down the street because a mob felt entitled to claim it. We owe it to all people targeted online because of their race, gender, religion or identity. We owe it to young people scrolling through their phones tonight exposed to toxic algorithms that prioritise hate and disinformation over safety and belonging.”
“It is about all people who are terrorised in their communities because the Government has failed to prioritise tackling far-right and online ecosystems that have gone on to fester scenarios where library staff are being harassed because of books kept on the shelves. We must also acknowledge that the threat we face is a threat to the very values on which the State is built. The idea that all people regardless of their background, beliefs and circumstances can live in safety and dignity is at the heart of our democracy and it is very much under threat. The rise of online hate and far-right ideology threatens to rip those values apart.”
“We have seen how big tech platforms have become weapons for those who want to sow terror and discord in our communities, yet this Government refused to stand up to them when it abandoned key elements of the hate crime legislation. We have watched as Ministers talk tough in soundbites and then walk away when it comes to standing up to Silicon Valley. If we are serious about making this country safer, we have to acknowledge that security is not just about borders and international threats, although they are no less important. It is about every area where fear is stoked by racism and lies. It is about every parent who worries about the online spaces their children inhabit.”
“Of course, someone who downloads a training manual for an online terrorist group should be considered a threat in the deepest sense of the word and it needs to be acted on. However, so too should a person who purposely shares rumours online with the intent of sparking riots on the streets of Dublin or elsewhere in the country. That is also a threat we cannot ignore. There is merit in supporting some aspects of the Bill. I understand it incorporates threats posed by terrorist actors across and outside our borders, but I ask the Government not to ignore the threats posed by the actors spreading terror and fear in communities the length and breadth of Ireland. That requires legislation, resources and urgency, but also a simple acknowledgement that it is happening. We have seen how quickly online platforms can mobilise hate.”
“We watched as the hate crime legislation was stripped of its core provisions on online incitement. We have watched as the Government has failed to stand up to big tech and hold platforms to account for the content that festers and spreads on its watch. We have watched as disinformation has been allowed to circulate unchallenged, unfettered, poisoning public discourse, endangering communities and putting gardaí and ordinary people in harm's way. The Bill before us acknowledges the threats posed by cross-border terror and online training for terror. That is good and welcome. However, I would also like to see - we will table an amendment on this at a future point - the same urgency when it comes to terror that plays out on our streets that is mobilised by online agitators. That requires the same urgency.”
“We have lived through it and witnessed it with our own eyes. We saw in the riots that shook the city shops looted, buses burned, gardaí and ordinary people injured and a neighbourhood terrorised. Why? It was because a tragedy became a rallying point for far-right agitation, for those spreading fear, hate and outright lies, who went on to inflict terror on the streets of Dublin. Those platforms became recruiting grounds for hate, racism, conspiracy and a mob that felt emboldened to take to the streets. They were emboldened by actors who were predominantly online telling people that there were threats and to go and burn down buildings. They faced no consequences for that. What lessons have been learned? What concrete measures have been brought forward? There have been very few. The Government promised urgency and we received platitudes.”
“I thank the Minister for the opportunity to debate the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025, which is important legislation. I want to be clear from the outset that we support the Bill's objectives broadly. We live in a world where terrorist threats evolve quickly. We have a responsibility to ensure our laws evolve with them. I accept that measures to address cross-border terrorist activity - training and facilitating travel for terrorist ends - are both necessary and prudent. However, I will not accept the absolute silence from the Government at the growing threat closer to home. The rise of far-right extremism, the mobilisation of hate online and the violence that has spilled onto our streets are not abstract ideas. They are not hypotheticals. They have already happened.”
“I will return to the issue of the GPO and the Government's plans, as outlined a couple of days ago, to turn it into a cultural space with retail units and office space. Does that plan not lack ambition? On O'Connell Street and the surrounding streets, we have retail space. We have office space aplenty. Of course, the GPO has historical significance. It also provides a huge opportunity for the city and for the country to have a proper civic museum with a monument to everything that happened there. What the Government plans lacks ambition. It could be so much more, in terms of using that space for a civic museum - something profound for the city. My frustration is that I think we can do more with that space.”
“Let us build a justice system that the Republic deserves. Let us trust ourselves to do better and let us show that, even in the face of real threat, we will not compromise on rights, fairness or the democratic values that should define us.”
“It is the moment to put in place the structures that make jury trials safe and sustainable, to invest in the systems that allow our courts to function with integrity, even under pressure, and to send a clear message that Ireland is not a fragile state clinging to old emergency powers, but a confident republic willing to uphold its own ideals. We should stop managing the risk of reform and start embracing the responsibility of it. Let us be honest about what has happened here. The Special Criminal Court was created in a time of fear but fear is not a sound foundation for permanent law. The longer we keep it in place without challenge, the more we allow fear to shape the justice system in ways that are hard to undo. This should be the last year we stand in this Chamber and renew these powers without serious reform under way.”
“That is the crossroads we are at now. The 2023 review offered a path forward. Some of its members argued for a return to jury trials with protections built in. That is not a utopian vision and it should never have been seen in that way. It is a workable, concrete reform, and one that aligns with international norms, our constitutional obligations and the values of the Republic. The Minister said that reform will take time but if we keep waiting, the opportunity will pass us by. The more years we spend renewing these powers, the harder it becomes to unwind them. The more normal they become, the more reluctant Governments will be to challenge them and the more distant we will grow from the original reasons they were introduced. This is the moment to act.”
“I represent a community that knows what organised crime looks like. The inner city has seen too many lives lost to gangland violence, too many families destroyed by addiction and fear and too many young people pulled into criminal networks that promise protection but deliver only ruination. Therefore, I am not naive about the risks involved. However, I also know that those communities deserve justice that is not just swift but legitimate. People who are already living with injustice should not be asked to accept trials that take place outside the normal safeguards of the law. A court that operates without a jury should be a last resort. It should be rare, it should be tightly limited and it should never become the default for dealing with certain types of crime simply because we have not invested enough in alternatives.”
“That is a failure of ambition, a failure of confidence in our own institutions and a failure to live up to the ideals we claim to hold. In a republic, justice is supposed to rest with the people. The jury trial is not just a legal mechanism. It is a civic act. It is an expression of public confidence in democracy. It is the belief that no matter how serious the charge, no matter how complicated the case, ordinary citizens can sit in judgment and deliver a verdict that is fair. That principle is not outdated. It is not optional. It is at the heart of what it means to be a republic. When we say that certain people cannot be tried before a jury, we are not just making a technical legal decision. We are sending a message about how much we are willing to invest in our democracy. Right now, I believe we are selling that short.”
“However, we are not the only country dealing with these threats and we are not the only state that has had to confront the problem of jury intimidation. Other democracies have managed it. They have introduced protected juror identities, created secure courtrooms, established robust witness protection schemes and provided the resources to ensure that their courts can function safely and fairly without abandoning the fundamental right to trial by jury. That is the real issue here. This is not about distrusting juries. It is about not having confidence in the State to protect them. Every time we renew these powers, what we are really saying is that we do not believe the Irish State can guarantee safety to those who serve on juries and that we would rather bypass the challenge than rise to meet it.”
“Ireland has been asked again and again to explain why we continue to operate a non-jury court system on a permanent basis. No other EU country does so. Frankly, our explanations have begun to wear thin. It is worth asking what it says about us as a republic that we continue to rely on a court system that most of our peers consider unacceptable in normal circumstances. Of course, some will say this is necessary, that the threats we face are too serious for the ordinary courts to manage, that organised crime poses too great a risk, that juries cannot be protected or that witnesses might be intimidated. To that, I would say that, yes, intimidation is real, gangland violence is serious and protecting those involved in criminal trials is essential.”
“If we are back in this Chamber in 12 months having the same debate, passing the same motion, extending the same powers, then people will rightly question whether reform is genuinely under way or whether it is just being kicked down the road once again. We have been here before. This is not the first time the case for reform has been made. There have now been two major independent reviews, one in 2002 and the other in 2023. Both recommended significant change and expressed concern about the long-term use of extraordinary courts, yet very little has changed. We have also heard serious concerns from international observers. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the former UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, has warned against the creeping expansion of emergency powers.”
“In 2025, the State is not in that kind of emergency. It is not on the brink of collapse. It is not at war. Yet, year after year, we continue to renew these extraordinary powers. This is not because we still face the same threat but because we have grown used to them. This is the real danger here: the slow normalisation of exceptional powers; the idea that we can keep these measures in place indefinitely and still call it emergency law; the belief that if we just renew them quietly enough, no one will ask why we still need them. I heard what the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, said earlier. He said that reforms are on the way and that these things take time. I welcome that the Government is now acknowledging the need for change but I also want to be honest.”
“I intend to speak about the Offences Against the State Act, in particular the continued operation of the Special Criminal Court. This is not just a matter of law. It is a question of principle, of how we, as a republic, administer justice in the most serious cases and of what kind of country we want to be by virtue of that fact. The Special Criminal Court was never meant to be permanent. It was introduced as an emergency measure during a time of deep national threat, a time when the State was under pressure from those who sought to undermine it through violence. Therefore, in response to that threat, we created a court that operated outside the ordinary rules of trial, with no jury, with belief evidence permitted and with cases tried before a panel of judges without the same level of public scrutiny. That was more than 50 years ago.”
“If we enforce their own GDPR standards, on which their algorithms rely, that would cut the problem off at source right now. There is no need for the State to absolve itself of responsibility for the insidious violence that is being inflicted upon women and young girls in this country and throughout Europe. We can lead on this by applying GDPR standards to the tech companies that are based here.”
“I fully concur that the responsibility lies with men to address this pervasive issue. However, that does not absolve the State of its responsibility, and the State is in neglect of its responsibilities across a variety of fields when it comes to men's violence against women, be that the provision of refuge centres, the collation of data or the regulation of social media platforms. I absolutely agree that technology has changed since I was younger. I can only imagine the terror of parents of young girls in this country at the moment, when we have social media influencers bombarding them with hate-filled messaging that target their body size and seek to direct how they should approach the world. That is why we require regulation. Europe absolutely has a role in this but the tech companies are based here.”
“When will the Government finally act to regulate recommender algorithms? When will it switch off the systems that are spreading hate for profit before more harm is done?”
“Violence against women is nothing new but social media is supercharging it. Big tech platforms are driving it straight into the phones of young men. Their algorithms reward misogyny, disinformation and abuse because they keep people scrolling and keep the companies making money. Last year, a study by DCU showed that violent, sexist content was delivered to male-identified accounts within 23 minutes of their owners logging on, even if the user showed no interest in such content. This is the scale of what we are up against. With the kinds of actors we have at the helm of the biggest social media platforms, we cannot afford to drag our feet. Every hour the Government delays acting allows violence and hatred towards women to be normalised online and across society. My questions to the Minister are simple.”
“It is the man shouting at a woman in a bar, the hand on her back she did not invite and the so-called jokes about rape being shared in WhatsApp groups. That is how violence is normalised. The epidemic of men's violence against women continues to be framed as a women's issue across all facets of society. Let us make no mistake about the truth, which is that men's violence against women is a crisis that men must be part of solving. We have created a society where there is such a pervasive sense of male violence against women that we have had to coin the word "femicide" to describe the epidemic. Even the very word allows men to evade accountability for this ongoing crisis. As men, we need to do more than shake our heads. We must call out violence when we see it because to be silent is to be complicit.”
“We are living in a culture where perpetrators of abuse are not only tolerated but celebrated. They include the President of the United States, sports stars with multimillion euro contracts and influencers who poison our young men with misogyny packaged as self-help. The network of anti-women online communities, full of grifters, abusers and con men, is flooding social media with hate. As a State, we are doing almost nothing to stop it. More than a decade ago, when Irishwoman Jill Meagher was murdered in Australia, her husband Tom wrote about the monster myth. In that work, he explained that abusers are often thought of as monsters - broken and unrecognisable - but they are not. Often, they are our colleagues, neighbours and friends. The monster myth lets us all off the hook.”
“I extend the condolences of the Social Democrats on the death of disability activist, Jacqui Browne. Her loss will be greatly felt. The details in today's Women's Aid report are deeply disturbing but not surprising. We know domestic and gender-based violence is insidious. It thrives in silence, shame and in the shadows but it is everywhere, in every parish, every institution and every workplace. Last year, more than 41,000 women contacted Women's Aid. The scale is staggering but it is only the surface. One in three women will experience physical, psychological or sexual abuse by a partner or ex-partner. That amounts to nearly 900,000 women affected by this type of violence in this country right now. This did not happen by accident. We have allowed this violence to grow and I am fearful about where it is headed.”
“We have a decade of reimagining in front of us, and a decade of persuasion in some instances. Motions like this help us to keep the conversation going. It is a conversation I look forward to being involved in.”
“Much of the conversation is about a shared island and a united Ireland. We have from previous taoisigh some interventions that I find interesting and welcome. This is a really exciting conversation. We do not have enough reimagining of what exactly a 32-county modern republic would look like. We should do more of this in this Chamber and start to work towards it. It should not be when we feel confident enough to have it. There is great potential associated with what we could achieve with the ideal of a republic. For us in the Social Democrats, it is built on institutions and public services. It is not just about the flags and symbols or who gets to vote in what way; it is about what the institutions and public services look like. This is a really exciting conversation.”
“It would mean a country where public services reflect public values, where housing is not just a source of misery and a word followed by “crisis”, where healthcare is not a privilege, where schools are inclusive and where opportunity is not tied to income or background. A republic like that will not be built overnight; it will take hard choices and honest conversations in communities the length and breadth of the island. Giving citizens in the North the right to vote for the President would be one small step in this direction and would send a clear message that this island belongs to us all. I support the motion not as a gesture but as part of a wider commitment to a fairer, united Ireland – one built not on rhetoric but on rights and the daily work of making this Republic one truly worthy of that name.”
“If we believe in a 32-county republic, as I do, we cannot pretend Irishness ends at a border. We cannot ask people in the North to believe in the republic without offering them a role in shaping it. Of course, the Presidency is largely symbolic, but symbols do matter, especially in post-conflict societies. A vote in a presidential election is not just about choosing a figurehead; it is also about stating clearly that citizens belong, that their voice counts and that their citizenship is real. This debate should go further, however, because what we are really being asked to consider is not just votes but a vision – a vision concerning the question of what it would mean to reimagine a modern, shared 32-county Irish republic, one that lives up to its word in its name.”
“I thank Sinn Féin for introducing the motion. I welcome the fact that the Government is not opposing it. Extending presidential voting rights to Irish citizens living in the North should never be seen as a radical demand. It represents a necessary and overdue recognition of the promises made in the Good Friday Agreement. That agreement was not just about ending conflict; rather, it was a commitment to a shared and equal future. It recognised that people in the North have a right to identify as Irish or British, or both, and to have that identity respected by the institutions of this island. However, respect is not just about words because it is also about access, voice and recognising Irish citizens in the North should have the same right to choose their Head of State as those living in counties Cork, Kerry or Dublin.”
“We woke up this morning to news that, finally, a proposal was going to the Cabinet on the implementation of the recommendations of the Dublin city task force. I thought this was brilliant and that perhaps now, after four press conferences and about two years, we would get some detail. I listened but we got a rehash of the same announcements that had been made three times at this point and absolutely nothing else. The city is in decline and needs leadership. We thought this was what the announcement was going to be about but it just seemed to be a useful press release for the Government. I ask that statements be put on the agenda to discuss the implementation of the task force recommendations.”