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 22 of 22.
“I would like answers to these questions. The Tánaiste said he would want to work constructively across the House in respect of the triple lock. We are off to a very poor start in that regard so we will take that with a large pinch of salt. Trust has been broken. I ask the Tánaiste not to speak in riddles about the triple lock. What exactly is the proposal? One more time, I implore the Tánaiste not to ram through these undemocratic proposals. We all know that backbenchers have speaking time during questions on promised legislation. There is ample opportunity for backbenchers to have their voices heard.”
“If it has been so long in the making, what exactly is the Tánaiste looking to replace it with? Will it be a double lock? Will it be a single lock? Will the UN have any role in the process at all? These are very reasonable questions for something that has been long in the making and I hope the Tánaiste can give us some clarity. I am not saying for a second that the UN is perfect, far from it, but we all remember the horrors from which it was born. Therefore, now is not the time to be removing ourselves from these institutions that we should be committing to building up. If we remove ourselves from the triple lock and the UN, is the Government saying that we will go on NATO missions? Will they be EU-led missions? What missions would the Tánaiste like to send our troops on that cannot be done under the triple lock as it stands?”
“I will take that back. It was another con trotted out just to give this idea to the public of who the Government is. What it does in private is completely different. Very clearly, the Opposition cannot trust this Government. I want to talk about another issue. It has been clearly flagged that the Government is going to bring forward a proposal to remove the triple lock. That proposal will be brought to Cabinet next month. Whenever the Tánaiste is asked about that proposal, he talks in riddles. We know that the Tánaiste wants to remove the requirement for peacekeeping missions to have a UN mandate but we are totally in the dark about what he plans to replace it with. Yesterday, my colleague, Deputy Gibney, was told by the Tánaiste that these plans have been long in the making. Why can we not be provided with any clarity?”
“Like all grubby little deals, this deal was done behind closed doors and we may never know the details. The Tánaiste made a commitment in this Chamber. Both he and the Taoiseach gave solemn commitments that they would work across the Chamber, collaboratively, in respect of any Dáil reform. That very clearly lies in tatters. Who can forget other promises? The previous Government promised that 40,000 homes would be built before the election. It promised to enact the occupied territories Bill before the election. Those promises are all gone and nothing was delivered. I will not use the word "lies" but it is hard to say otherwise.”
“Given the chance to work with the Opposition on Dáil reform, the Government preferred the nuclear option, ramming through its undemocratic proposals on Dáil reform at the 11th hour, all to deliver a grubby little deal for Deputy Michael Lowry and his band of Independents. It makes us and the public wonder what exactly is the leverage that Deputy Lowry has on Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil that brings forth such commitments.”
“That was not the Opposition, it was a Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Government. We believe in an enhanced Defence Forces. We understand the necessity of radar technology to understand what is going on beneath our seas. We absolutely need to have a conversation about Ireland's place in a world that is getting increasingly darker and where the dogs of war are starting to bark. Those subservient forces to my right think we should bark behind the biggest dogs. That is not what we should be doing. What we should be doing is being proud, strong and unrelenting in the pursuit of peace and standing up for the international institutions that were built out of these same conflicts. Now is not the time to remove ourselves from the triple lock and the UN mechanisms that go with it. Now is the time to stand for those principles.”
“Three years on, it is the United States that is looking to strip it of parts. We should acknowledge this for a multitude of reasons because it makes us question our place in the world and who are our allies. It leads us to a simple realisation. The only role for Ireland, a proud Republic which understands invasion and has stood against oppression, and the only role that matters for us despite what some of those in Fianna Fáil will tell us, is to be unrelenting in the pursuit of peace. When the bombs start dropping we are a small country with a proud history but our role can only be to pursue peace. Deputy Malcolm Byrne spoke about how this needs to make us question our defence and looked at the Opposition as if somehow it was we who left the Defence Forces in such a ragged state that we could not have a ship going out to sea.”
“However, this week in my constituency many people from Ukraine - who came here in search of sanctuary and found a home, placed their children in schools, made friendships in the community, joined our sports teams and became part of the fabric of community life - have been told they will be uprooted, they cannot stay there anymore, they have to take their families out of schools and move to some other place. This is a horrific form of cruelty and does not denote any sense of solidarity. While we may offer words, the actions of the State, not only in my community but in areas the length and breadth of the country from where we have heard reports of such things, is cruel, unjust and re-traumatising those who previously had to uproot their lives. It should be stopped. Ukraine suffered a brutal invasion three years ago.”
“I also welcome our special guests to the Chamber today. Three years ago Ukraine suffered an invasion of the most horrific form, an invasion the likes of which we thought was left behind in the 20th century and the horrors that emanated from the Second World War. Then we looked at the tanks rolling down the roads towards Kyiv and an image that will stay in my mind is the horrific bombing of the maternity hospital in Mariupol. In the three years that have passed since, those who have come here from Ukraine have brought friendship and enhanced our towns, cities and villages. We have benefited in a way we probably could not have imagined previously and for this we should be eternally grateful.”
“The Istanbul Convention to which Ireland signed up demands at the very least prevention, protection, prosecution and co-ordinated policies to protect women against men's violence. I support these measures as the most basic starting point of addressing the issue of men's violence against women.”
“This is not just a crisis, it is a clear warning sign and an opportunity for the Government to act. The use of therapy session notes in legal proceedings of sexual assault cases is nothing short of cruel. It is horrendous that such a scenario is still allowed in our court system. We have heard time and again that the process retraumatises survivors, leaving them with no safe space to heal from an unimaginable trauma. The absolute antithesis of restorative justice is to retraumatise victims but this is exactly what the court system allows. It is incumbent on us to intervene and provide legislation that will ensure it will no longer be allowed. The motion calls on the Government to acknowledge the gender violence epidemic and take immediate action to overhaul the justice system.”
“They are the President of the United States, sports stars with contracts and sponsorship deals, and men with large social media platforms that actively target young male children in schools as a way of normalising their toxicity and violent hatred towards women. This needs to be confronted on a macro level in terms of education programmes, positive interventions and creating role models and a society that help us remove this culture being targeted at our children every day. Alongside that, we are witnessing a clear and alarming rise in violence among men globally and locally. We are at risk of being a society where women will bear the brunt of men's violence even more than they already do, and we will be confronted with even more horrifying statistics.”
“Even that very term allows men to evade accountability for this ongoing crisis. I remember reading an article close to 15 years ago on Tom Meagher, whose wife Jill was brutally murdered in Australia. He referred to what he called "the monster myth", which he said allows us to see men's violence against women as being perpetrated by monsters who are othered so as not cast blame on the culture in which they are created. I am quite fearful, in the culture we have moved into, that these same male perpetrators of violence against women no longer seem to be hiding in dark corners or are no longer being othered.”
“It has been said before that since 1996, 274 women have died violently in the Republic of Ireland. In 2024, an average of 1,250 incidents of domestic violence was reported to the Garda every week. These statistics demand an immediate response from the Government but time and again they are reduced to a headline. While it is positive that women have been coming forward in recent years, the data we have on the issue comes from under-resourced front-line agencies filling the gap where the State should be. The epidemic of men's violence against women continues to be framed as a women's issue in all facets of society. We know that gender-based violence must be confronted by men. We have created a society where there is such a pervasive sense of male violence against women that the word "femicide" has been coined to describe the epidemic.”
“I thank Deputy Coppinger for tabling the motion. I acknowledge the guests we have in the Gallery. My party leader, Deputy Cairns, has been in touch to acknowledge the presence of Mr. David French. She has been working alongside him to bring forward Valerie's law. We will continue to push this as heavily as we can from the Opposition benches, although it would be infinitely easier if it came from the Government. It has become absolutely routine to be confronted with new reports highlighting the devastating impacts of gender-based violence in Ireland. Time and again, research published in our media has detailed new lows the country has sunk to when it comes to the prevalence of the crisis. It feels like as a society we are becoming increasingly more desensitised to its magnitude.”
“We absolutely need regulation to ensure AI complements human work rather than undermines it. To simply say that should not be seen as us being fearful or not understanding the possibilities. That is just acknowledging the reality and seeking to do what we are supposed to do in this Chamber, which is to legislate for it and not be beholden to those same interests. There is another immediate challenge, one Ireland cannot afford to ignore. AI is not just about data and algorithms, it is also about energy. Training large AI models consumes staggering amounts of electricity. Running them requires large amounts of it. Many of them are right here in Ireland. We know that. We should have these conversations. We should not be just talking pie in the sky about how great it will be.”
“In every revolution new technology has created wealth but the distribution of that wealth has always been a political choice. AI will of course be no different. If companies automate jobs and increase profits then we should not shy away from demanding they contribute back whether through taxation, social investment, or policies to ensure job retraining and redeployment and bring the conversation of a universal basic income of a very real standard to the table. We are clearly nearly at that point and this is not a distant concern. As we are well informed, Ireland's tech sector employs more than 150,000 people. If AI is used recklessly those jobs will be at risk. Let us not pretend this is just about tech companies. AI is used frequently in finance, legal services and customer support. AI is even being used in creative industries.”
“That does not mean we have to just hand over our legitimacy to these tech oligarchs and allow them in many ways to not only dictate the pace of our economy but also the pace of our foreign policy. When it comes to some of the decisions we are taking with regard to Gaza and the occupied territories Bill, it was all designed to plámás these same figures. The first and foremost challenge is an assurance that AI serves workers. That same previous Fianna Fáil speaker said that AI will not replace jobs. That is just clearly not true. On a very basic level I represent the north inner city community where containerisation down in the docks created a huge displacement of workers. That void still has not been filled so to say that is simply not true. The Taoiseach spoke yesterday about a fourth industrial revolution.”
“Of course, there are opportunities here to build a new system but what the tech billionaires aspire to is a system where power is concentrated, where automation would serve the few while the rest of us are expected to adapt, and a scramble for security in an economy that no longer values human labour. We cannot afford to sleepwalk into that future. Of course we have to be bold in accepting the reality of AI. It is happening whether we like it or not. We cannot put that milk back into the bottle even if we would like to. That does not mean we just have to be subservient to it. If we accept the fact there will be increased automation and AI that does not mean we have to have increased electricity bills for consumers.”
“It is the equivalent of saying you are not allowed talk about banking regulation if you have a bank account. The only person I remember in the Chamber who could meet that standard was the former leader of Fianna Fáil. What a weird analogy. For years we were sold the dream that automation and AI would free people from drudgery, allowing society to prosper and with fewer working hours and more leisure. Any of us who watched the inauguration of Trump saw the tech billionaires lined up behind him have only one purpose in mind - the erosion of workers' rights and the deployment of wealth to their own ends. We cannot step away from that reality.”
“I listened to the previous Government speaker who repeated something said yesterday. It is almost as if you cannot talk about regulation if you have a social media account. What a banal and boring analysis of the situation.”
“It determines whether they can build a future, put down roots and plan for their families. This Government does not see housing that way, however. It sees it as an investment opportunity first and a human right second. When it sees a crisis, it reverts to tax breaks. The Government will vote down this motion today, not because it is unworkable but because it is unwilling. It is unwilling to change, to improve or to be better for the collective rather than just for those in whose interests it seeks to legislate.”
“Most tedious of all, the Government will say parties such as the Social Democrats had the opportunity to go into government. Every single day, it proves why we were right to walk away from that opportunity, when this is the reality facing this country as a result of its continued and unwavering approach to failure. A Government that claps itself on the back for record housing supply is still failing to meet demand. The Government tells people they should be grateful for small improvements, as if stabilising a crisis of catastrophic levels is something to celebrate. There is nothing in this motion that is radical or unreasonable. It is the bare minimum that a functioning and serious Government should already be implementing. Housing is not an abstract economic concept; it is the foundation of people's lives.”
“The truth is that this is not because these proposals will not work; it is because they are politically inconvenient for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and the class they represent. To adopt these policies would be to admit their approach to housing has failed and that their reliance on the private market to solve this crisis has not delivered. The Government's policies have locked an entire generation out of home ownership and forced people into precarious renting well into their 40s. Its policies have made housing the number one reason young people are once again leaving our country. The Government cannot face up to that failure, so we get platitudes. The Government resorts to excuses. It says now is not the time and that these measures would spook investors. It says it has a plan but it can never quite explain why it is not working.”
“He will say he wants home ownership to be within reach, yet the Government will vote against motion after motion seeking to limit the bulk-buying of homes by investment funds. The Government will say it wants to stabilise the rental market yet it will vote against a motion that aims to strengthen protection for renters and curb excessive rent hikes, as is the norm in most European countries. The Government says it wants affordability yet it continues to give tax breaks to institutional investors that do not build homes for ordinary families but instead hoard housing as an asset class. The same Government that says the Opposition has no idea will reject every opportunity to work constructively on solutions.”
“Regardless of that, today we are once again bringing forward solutions, as we did throughout the last term and will continue to do through this term. This motion contains real, practical measures that can be implemented now. These are measures to make home ownership more achievable, rebalance the housing market in favour of people rather than investors and ensure that rent does not swallow the entirety of a person's income. These are alternatives to the reality facing people today. What does the Government do? It will not only vote against it, it will not even debate it, but the Taoiseach will come into the Chamber later today and say we need to have a discussion on housing. The hypocrisy of it stinks.”
“Almost every single week, I have listened to the Taoiseach responding in a very tedious manner to legitimate questions from the Opposition, including ourselves in the Social Democrats. He asks where our solutions are and what we would do differently. I have a simple question now. Where is the housing Minister? It is becoming farcical at this point. Parliamentary debate means that we present in our time, which does not come for us regularly - it is about six opportunities a year - and we use it to discuss housing. We bring forward the solutions but this Government, which is now taking a hostile approach to parliamentary function and debate, decides the Minister will not be available and simply will not answer questions. We used to have ghost estates and now we have ghost Ministers.”
“The Taoiseach is presiding over a Government that seems to see crime as something to be responded to only after the fact. I read the programme for Government once again earlier, I heard the Taoiseach's statements and I listened to the Minister for Justice on the radio over the weekend. There does not seem to be any co-ordinated strategy for a violence reduction approach. I hear the Taoiseach talking about increased sentences for knife crime from five to seven years and I have heard him mention body-worn cameras. What are we going to do on violence reduction? We accept violence is increasing on our streets so surely the Taoiseach will accept we need a strategy that is multiagency and that is approaching this from different angles to confront that. There are examples. There is best practice and evidence-based policies.”
“Brexit was a bad deal for young people and while we cannot undo it, we can at least make things a bit easier. The progression of this motion is a step in the right direction. It is about keeping options open and opportunities alive and making sure that young people do not lose out because of political decisions they had no say in. As the scheme progresses I hope it strengthens and gives everyone an opportunity to travel in the way that was previously the case before the unmitigated Brexit disaster.”
“People brings skills, ideas and energy and this is about making it easier for them to do so in a fair and structured way. That said, we of course need to keep an eye on the details. For example, this scheme cannot just be for the wealthy. The last thing we need is a system where only those who can afford high visa fees or prove that they have thousands in a bank account, can get access. That is not mobility; that is just about protecting and enhancing privilege. If we are opting in - and I hope we are - we need to push for a deal that is fair for all young people, not just for those more privileged. Ireland has a long history of people leaving for work, study or a fresh start. We know the value of mobility because we have lived it as part of our story.”
“It would allow young people from the EU and the UK to spend time in each other's countries with fewer restrictions. For Irish people, the common travel area already covers a lot of this but it does not help everyone. There are people in Ireland who are EU nationals who grew up, studied and built their lives here but who do not have automatic rights in the UK. This scheme would open doors for them too and that could only be a positive thing. This is not just about what Ireland gets out of it. It is about making sure that young people from the UK can also come here to work and contribute to the country. Immigration should not be seen as a problem to be managed. It is an opportunity and an initiative like this allows people to start that process at a younger age.”
“I support this motion and I will continue to do so as it progresses through the Dáil because it is about giving young people back the opportunities that they lost after Brexit. Regardless of what the scheme is called, whether it is the UK-EU youth experience or otherwise, it actually enables the British Labour Party to find its courage and recognise swiftly and loudly that Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster. For years, young people from the EU and Britain could easily move between countries for work, study and just to experience life somewhere new. That was normal and then Brexit came along; suddenly things that used to be straightforward became a bureaucratic nightmare. For many it is too expensive or too complicated and it is simply not worth the hassle. The proposed scheme is a chance to fix that.”
“I would love to talk more in detail about the proposed Dublin task force. It has been much talked about but not in any way budgeted for. It is badly needed in our capital city, which deserves more than being a consistent form of press release whenever the Government looks for cheap headlines. It needs to be budgeted for and a genuine sense of responsibility in leadership given.”
“We stood for a senior Minister with responsibility for disabilities not because we just believed in another new Minister but because too often in this Chamber each of us looks up and sees a person who is brought to the Chamber, in great difficulty themselves, or their family, to vindicate a basic right such as a wheelchair, in some instances, or the carer's allowance. They ask that they no longer be means-tested. It is cruel and unjust today, with the family being imposed upon. Another reason is access to an SNA. These are all the reasons we fought so hard to achieve those things and they were nonchalantly taken away, dismissed and we were told we had our chance when we know that was not the case. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste clearly had their favourites and it was the path of least resistance.”
“Long before any of us were around any table, a deal had been done. We stood clearly for an increase in transformational changes that would bring achievements for the people. What is actually in the programme for Government is the same old same old with a new glossy title. Our cities, towns and the country as a whole demand of us to improve performances and expectations. The basic necessities of any country are found in its public services. I hope many of the things the Government claims it believes in such as the public models of childcare and public healthcare come to pass. I cannot even get into climate because I am just remembering a conversation I had with the now Taoiseach when he dismissed the idea we would not achieve our climate targets, basically saying, sure, they will not fine us anyway.”
“There are some great statements on what the Government would like to achieve but the only clear indicator of future performance is past performance. Every single time, successive Governments in which Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have been the only two constants have failed when it comes to the provision of public services. That was why when we spoke about how the Social Democrats could enter government based on five dealbreakers, we made public services central. One of the more arrogant things that have been said from the Government side of the Chamber over recent weeks whenever we tried to question it, whether about the falsity of the housing figures presented willingly by the Government or the inability to promote what the public childcare in this programme for Government is, was, "Ye had your chance". That is not true.”
“He spoke about the pride people have in being a garda. I agree absolutely; I have friends and family in the profession. The reason people are leaving is not because of an absence of pride in their work; it is because of an inability to pay to live in the cities they are asked to police, the absence of morale, when they expressed no confidence in those in charge to their leadership and it is simply neglected. To achieve full satisfaction among those whom we ask to police our streets, nurse in our hospitals and teach in schools, we need to address the underlying reasons those people on whom we rely so much are withdrawing their labour. They cannot afford to live in the cities or the cost of living when it comes to childcare provision. None of these issues seem to be addressed in the programme for Government.”
“There has been a demand on the city council to address the aesthetic aspects of a community that bring a sense of unsafety such as dereliction and illegal dumping that goes uncleaned. These are all simple things that one would expect but are simply not being addressed. On the programme for Government's claim that there will be 5,000 new gardaí recruited over five years, lots of us would love to see that but we have not seen any detail of how it would be achieved. Last year saw the first small annual increase in Garda numbers since 2020; they went up by just under 200. At that rate, it would take two decades to bring the force up to 18,000, the expected number to adequately police this country. In his contributions on how he will increase that number, the new Minister seems to just be the cheerleader in chief.”
“In acknowledgement of the community I represent, while we cannot ever legislate for an event of such savagery in isolation, that community has for the past 18 months to two years been demanding of its public reps and holding public meetings. At every door we knocked on during the general and local election campaigns, the single issue that came up was safety. Stoneybatter is not unique in that, especially around the inner city communities, north and south. The response from those in charge on behalf of the State was to simply not hear. There are conditions in communities in Dublin that create a sense of unsafety. That has not been addressed. Simple actions have been called for such as an increased Garda presence and crisis intervention teams to address the mental health issues prevalent in our communities.”
“One such bad day occurred in my constituency of Dublin Central in the community of Stoneybatter on Sunday when a vicious assault took place on three individuals. It is now before the courts so I will not go into too much detail about the event but rather acknowledge how incredible the gardaí were with their response and the community was in rallying. I hope the victims make a full recovery. I was surprised when I raised an issue relating to safety in the city today that the Minister for Justice referred to how unexpected it was for an attack to take place in Stoneybatter at 3 p.m. Those were his words; I chose not to mention the event.”
“When I consider the programme for Government we are now asked to speak about, the image that comes to mind is from the plinth in the early stages of the Dáil when a number of members of the Government, who are now established as members of the Government, stood there and said they would support this Government through the good times and the bad. That phrase has been reiterated in different contexts, in the media and in this Chamber for a variety of reasons. Humility demands of us that we also acknowledge that those bad days are very rarely ours. That is the job of the programme for Government, and those of us in opposition who believe in something different, to advance and recognise.”
“Yesterday I listened again as the Minister for Justice became a commentator-in-chief and stated that parts of Dublin are unsafe. How long do those parts of Dublin have to remain unsafe? What exactly does the Government intend to do to increase not only perceptions of safety in our city but also actual safety? Last year we saw the first increase in Garda numbers since 2020. The increase in question was 196. At the current rate of increase, it would take two decades to bring the force up to the 18,000 recommended by the Garda Commissioner. What is the plan? Parts of Dublin cannot simply remain unsafe.”
“All that the Opposition, including ourselves the Social Democrats, and Sinn Féin in bringing forward its motion tonight, is asking is asking the Government parties to do what they promised and do what they stood in front of the Irish people and said for the causes that we understand, yet we stand here and act like we are superior. That is not diplomacy; that is a failure of diplomacy.”
“We questioned whether Israel would bomb a hospital, and then it bombed every hospital and then it bombed every university. Now this morning we woke up to talk of ethnic cleansing. The President of the United States and the war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu stood on a stage and said that is exactly what they are going to do - the Riviera of the Middle East, and still we say nothing and are literally talking jobs. Those tyrants do not recognise any sort of weakness; it is about strength and the projection of their own confidence onto the world stage. There will come a time when we will all have to account for what we did. We are equivocating, we are meek, and all the while there is a people within this world, whom we have a connection with through our own struggles for freedom, who are being obliterated.”
“Earlier today during Questions on Promised Legislation, I took the unusual step of actually asking about legislation that was promised. It was promised by the Taoiseach, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, last November, when he told members of the Oireachtas foreign affairs committee that it would be a first priority of a new government to enact the occupied territories Bill. The same person was the leader of the then Fianna Fáil Government when they introduced Second Stage of the same legislation in Dáil Éireann in 2019, yet here we stand again today, with promises unmet, equivocation, lost words and mealy-mouthed excuses. In the five years I was previously in Dáil Éireann, there was a time when we would not say the word "apartheid" when referring to Gaza and Palestine.”
“Does he intend to bring forward a co-ordinated response at EU level? When will we actually see some form of legislation in respect of the occupied territories Bill? I understand the Taoiseach's fear. We are all watching for the tariffs that are coming through but they are coming for us anyway. People like Donald Trump do not recognise weakness. They recognise people who stand up, say it like it is and respond. What will be the Taoiseach's response?”
“In November of last year, a mere three months ago, I sat with the Taoiseach in a committee room for a meeting of the foreign affairs committee and he assured all those present and, more importantly, the public watching at home that one of the first acts of this new Dáil would be the enactment of the occupied territories Bill. It is now very clear that this is not his intention. This morning, we woke up to the President of the United States and the war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu divulging that they intend to ethnically cleanse Gaza of its 1.8 million citizens and turn it into some form of dystopian Disneyland. Is it the intention of the Irish State to say anything at all? Does the Taoiseach intend to express his revulsion to the American ambassador to Ireland at such a suggestion?”
“Instead, we have the Government wishing that people who developed their own programme for Government correct their homework. It is absolutely despicable.”
“Why can we not ask questions? When can we talk to the expected Minister for Finance about what our position is following events in America? It is absolutely ludicrous. The arrangements for the new Dáil technical groups undermine the very foundations of parliamentary democracy. The idea of parliamentary democracy is that governments make proposals, as the Government did with its programme for Government, and we present alternatives to them, if necessary. What the Government is doing now belies that very principle. It is unbecoming. We are off to an incredibly bad start in this Dáil. This is setting the tone for the next five years. That is from you, not from us. What we are asking for is that the basic tenets of democracy are upheld here.”
“I am not sure which absurdity to oppose first but I will start with the Government allowing itself another two weeks to avoid Dáil scrutiny, not answer questions and not be held to account in the traditional manner of this Parliament. The public will simply not stand for it. It is ludicrous and was opposed in the Business Committee. We need to demonstrate a little bit of leadership here. We all know the issues. The front of The Irish Times this morning tells us that Trump has removed the United States from international tax agreements. Is that not something the House should be able to discuss and understand? We are told that Ministers need time to settle into their briefs. That may be the case but we have a Taoiseach, a soon-to-be Taoiseach, a Tánaiste and a soon-to-be Tánaiste who are part of the programme for Government.”