George Lawlor
Wexford · Labour Party · Ireland
“I commend my colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, on bringing this motion to the floor of the Dáil. One line from his contribution this morning is at the nub of everything, where he said, "Poverty should never determine potential." That is the key component of this motion.”
“The ESRI and University of Limerick found that three in ten secondary schools mandate digital devices, including 17% of DEIS schools - the very schools serving families least able to absorb these costs.”
“Parents who are already struggling with rising rents, food prices and energy costs are now being told that, without a laptop, their child will fall behind. It is shameful that the State's own free book scheme savings are being wiped out by digital demands that schools have no business imposing without the proper funding.”
“We are calling for enforceable guidelines, proper ICT funding, a national loan scheme, the removal of exam fees, the reversal of transport fee hikes, the restoration of the back-to-school allowance and a ban on voluntary contributions that are voluntary in name only. Families cannot take any more.”
“At the outset, I would like to join, as everyone here has, in warmly welcoming to Leinster House Cian and Jordan Adams, the FTB brothers, and also Cian's partner, Helen, who played such a vital and key role in the whole 33 marathons in 33 days. They are most welcome.”
“The programme for Government commitment, in particular the statutory home care scheme, must be something we seriously look at bringing into being following its insertion in multiple programmes for Government.”
The complete record
Every one of 542 lines we hold for George Lawlor, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“We are calling for enforceable guidelines, proper ICT funding, a national loan scheme, the removal of exam fees, the reversal of transport fee hikes, the restoration of the back-to-school allowance and a ban on voluntary contributions that are voluntary in name only. Families cannot take any more. The digital divide is widening and unless this Government acts it will become a chasm. I urge every Member, Government and Opposition, to support this motion and stand with parents and children who deserve so much more.”
“Parents who are already struggling with rising rents, food prices and energy costs are now being told that, without a laptop, their child will fall behind. It is shameful that the State's own free book scheme savings are being wiped out by digital demands that schools have no business imposing without the proper funding. Let us be clear: the Government has also cut the ICT grant. It has failed to provide maintenance funding. It has reimposed exam fees, increased transport charges and left schools so underfunded that 47 of them have had to seek financial support just to keep the lights on. Meanwhile, families are expected to pick up the tab. This motion is not radical; it is basic fairness.”
“The ESRI and University of Limerick found that three in ten secondary schools mandate digital devices, including 17% of DEIS schools - the very schools serving families least able to absorb these costs. Barnardos tells us that the average cost of a device has skyrocketed to €430 - which I think we will all agree is a most conservative estimate - up from €121 - which is also conservative - just a few years ago. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has received 3,000 requests to help with digital equipment since 2015. These are real families and real children who are suffering real stress. I have spoken to parents who were choosing between paying the electricity bill or buying a tablet their child must have in order to participate in class.”
“I commend my colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, on bringing this motion to the floor of the Dáil. One line from his contribution this morning is at the nub of everything, where he said, "Poverty should never determine potential." That is the key component of this motion. What is happening to many families throughout this country is nothing short of unacceptable. Every year, parents brace themselves for the back to school season and, every year, the financial pressure grows heavier. Now, on top of books, uniforms, transport fees, exam charges and so-called voluntary contributions, families are being told they must purchase digital devices costing €400, €500 and sometimes even more. It is simply outrageous and it is already pushing hard-pressed households to the pin of their collars. We know the facts.”
“People living with dementia deserve compassion, dignity and the highest standard of care. It is time for us to remember and honour their voices and support their families. We have to look to an island where no person who is facing dementia is left behind. We simply have to do better. I look forward to the Minister of State's commitment on this.”
“The programme for Government commitment, in particular the statutory home care scheme, must be something we seriously look at bringing into being following its insertion in multiple programmes for Government. We have to commit to a system that prioritises early diagnosis and expands community-based supports and also strengthens respite services and ensures that adequate investment in dementia-specific residential care is also in place. We also have to recognise and support family carers. Their contribution, as we all know and has been stated multiple times, saves the State millions upon millions of euro in terms of their input into care of their loved ones. They also provide dignity and comfort for those loved ones. It has been said before that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable.”
“In many parts of the country, families are struggling to access respite care, home support hours, day services and specialist dementia care when they need it most. No family should feel abandoned at the point of diagnosis or be left to navigate this journey alone. I also want to pay tribute to the Alzheimer Society of Ireland, ASI, which has done Trojan work and continues to do Trojan work right across the country in supporting families and those affected by this awful illness and disease. I ask the Minister of State to please commit to meeting with representatives from the Alzheimer Society of Ireland as they present their budget asks.”
“As we know, dementia is one of the greatest health and social care challenges facing this nation. It affects tens of thousands of people across every county and touches countless families who watch loved ones gradually lose memories, independence and, in many cases, a sense of self. Indeed, my own mother succumbed to Lewy body dementia just last November, so I and my family know about the major impact it has and that impact is profound, not only on those living with dementia but also on spouses, children, siblings and carers who provide unwavering support every single day. While progress has been made, too many families still, unfortunately, face long wait lists for diagnosis, unequal access to specialist services and significant gaps in community supports.”
“At the outset, I would like to join, as everyone here has, in warmly welcoming to Leinster House Cian and Jordan Adams, the FTB brothers, and also Cian's partner, Helen, who played such a vital and key role in the whole 33 marathons in 33 days. They are most welcome. It was a remarkable fundraising odyssey and their extraordinary determination, resilience and love has inspired people across this country. They have undertaken this challenge in memory of their beloved mother, Geraldine, who sadly passed away at the young age of 52. They have not only raised awareness of dementia and led us to remember their mother but they have also raised vital funds that will be used in the battle against this awful disease. Their courage reminds us that behind every diagnosis is a family, a story and a community carrying both hope and heartache.”
“They are citizens of this nation with hopes, preferences, relationships and ambition. We owe that to every person with an intellectual disability, to every ageing parent carrying the burden of worry, which is intense, to families like Jane, Evan and Daniel Johnstone, and to the memory of Rod, who wanted nothing more than what every parent wants, the knowledge that his children would be safe, supported and valued long after he was gone.”
“Like so many parents of adults with intellectual disabilities, they did everything the State asked of them and more. They carried the responsibility, the worry and the advocacy that should never fall on families alone. The loss of Jane's husband, Rod, in 2014 was a devastating blow for Jane and the boys but she is not asking for special treatment. She is asking for certainty, dignity and a plan. Surely that is not too much to ask in what we term a modern republic. Far too often the State intervenes only when a crisis exists - a parent dies or becomes ill or a family reach breaking point. That is not planning; it is failure. This motion recognises that people with intellectual disabilities are not service users to be fitted into whatever vacancy happens to exist.”
“I strongly support this motion. For too long, families across this country have lived with a fear that most of us here in this Chamber could scarcely imagine. It is not a fear of what will happen today or tomorrow but a fear of what will happen when they are no longer here. They lie awake at night wondering who will care for their son or daughter, where they will live, whether they will be safe, whether they will be happy or whether they will still be connected to the people and places that they love and know. That fear is real. It is lived every single day by families throughout Ireland. I am thinking today in particular of my constituent Jane Johnstone and her two sons, Evan and Daniel. Jane and her late husband, Rod, devoted their lives to loving and supporting their boys.”
“Last Friday, Rosslare Europort was reaffirmed as a port of national importance. This is an issue I have discussed with the Minister relatively recently and I am looking for some sort of update. The Port of Rosslare has grown exponentially in years since Brexit, yet the former customs post, which can hold and park 93 trucks, lies idle after the Minister's Department spent €14.8 million on it. Can we please have some common sense in this regard? To be fair to the Minister, I spoke to him about this relatively recently. Can we have an update because common sense must prevail? Rosslare Harbour village is overrun trucks. The former customs post has parking for 93 trucks in an ideal location. I ask the Minister to act on this.”
“I welcome the Minister's comments. I am not campaigning for people who are speeding to have their fines rescinded. There is a problem with the signage, particularly in Glenmore. People who are driving in a 100 km/h zone arrive at an 80 km/h sign and are almost immediately captured by the camera and not given a chance to obey the law. People who were driving below 100 km/h and were captured by this camera, many of whom were decelerating, should be fairly treated. This one camera generated €4.9 million in revenue in 11 months. It is off the charts. It needs to be seriously investigated. Court cases are being taken because people have lost their licences as a result of this camera in Glenmore in particular. It is beyond the pale to think we are penalising people unfairly.”
“I thank the Minister. I wholeheartedly agree that these cameras are essential, vital and necessary and play an important role in road safety but we need fairness. We need these cameras to be operated fairly. The Minister cannot tell me there is not a problem when one camera in Glenmore, County Kilkenny is reading speeds for 30,599 fines, another camera read 3,000, some cameras read approximately 1,000 and one in Galway read 397. A person does not need to be a detective to understand that 30,599 fines from one camera indicates there is a problem. Can we have an independent review of this to investigate and interrogate why this is the case? People have said all along that they do not have a problem with the cameras but the signage is the problem. They are being captured and entrapped by these cameras.”
“The question relates to the issue of static speed cameras on the national road network and whether divergences between the number of fixed charge notices for speed detections at individual locations are compared and reviewed by officials and An Garda Síochána. The Minister will perhaps be aware of the massive disparity in the number of fines issued at various different cameras. One has issued 30,599 notices while another has issued 397 in an 11-month period. The Minister might make a statement on the matter.”
“We all know the impact AI will have on energy and water consumption in particular. We have to be cognisant of that in this legislation. I ask the Minister of State to do that.”
“There is a lot of fear among the entire population as to where AI is going in relation to the rights of workers and how this might be undermined unless there is strong legislation in place to ensure their rights and opportunities are strengthened. Amendment No. 7 speaks to our national climate objectives. We have already seen legislation pushed through this evening that abandoned a lot of our climate objectives. This amendment seeks to insert the following subsection: the need to ensure that the development and adoption of AI systems in the State is consistent with the national climate objective within the meaning of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, having particular regard to the energy consumption and environmental impact associated with the training, operation and deployment of AI systems.”
“Amendment No. 5 speaks to the promotion of responsible adoption of AI systems in workplaces and protects the legal rights of employees. A lot of people out there are very fearful of AI and what it will bring to the workplace. The amendment is geared towards the protection of existing employees and ensuring nothing we are doing through the establishment of this office will undermine that. It also calls for monitoring the use of AI systems for the purpose of workforce management, not to hand over AI to management to undermine existing workers and their rights and obligations under this Act and under artificial intelligence regulations. We also need to encourage and support the provision of training, reskilling and upskilling opportunities. This is vital in the current climate.”
“Given what is at stake and what is contained in it, it is not a huge ask that these three competencies, in particular, would be sought to serve on this board, however they may be appointed. As I said, however, this is indicative of the rushed legislation we see before us. As Deputy Gibney has pointed out, 11 days is simply not good enough. It is not good enough in the context of the decisions we have to make in this regard. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider the amendment seriously.”
“The amendment requires the Minister to endeavour to ensure that at least one member has expertise in fundamental rights law, data protection law or consumer protection law. This reflects the subject matter of the AI Act, which operates at the intersection of all three. The AI Act itself requires that national competent authorities have the necessary technical and legal expertise. Given that the office's function includes supervising high-risk AI systems affecting individuals' rights, the absence of any rights expertise requirement is certainly a gap. I do not think it is too big an ask to have the correct competent people sitting on what will be one of the most important boards to come before this House and, indeed, the country. The notion that we are asking for this is also a bit ludicrous.”
“While the enterprise committee did have pre-legislative scrutiny and will obviously issue a report, it is a halfway house compared with what it should be in terms of scrutiny by a committee that was set up and established specifically to discuss, investigate and interrogate the whole issue of AI. The amendment I propose states: Without prejudice ... the Minister shall, in so far as is practicable, endeavour to ensure that among the members of the Board there is at least one person with demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following: (a) fundamental rights law; (b) data protection law; (c) consumer protection law. The Bill provides for a board but does not specify any expertise requirements for its membership beyond general competence.”
“The Minister of State talks about the next phase. As Deputy Geoghegan alluded to, in that next phase, whatever it may be, surely there should be some role or function for the AI committee given the expertise it has built up since its establishment. This was established with foresight. People saw the need for an AI committee within these House. It is quite ludicrous, therefore, that when we bring a Bill or piece of legislation on AI before the House, the committee relevant to that legislation is not consulted. That is something we need to examine greatly.”
“Like my colleagues, I would have serious concerns about the timescale with regard to this legislation and, as has been said, the notion that we have a dedicated AI committee and yet the only scrutiny, as such, was done by the enterprise committee. I sit on the enterprise committee. The AI committee has done a tremendous amount of work since its establishment and its members are really invested in this legislation, probably to a greater degree than the members of the enterprise committee. The notion that we would have a dedicated AI committee and its members would not be consulted in a meaningful way on this legislation leaves a funny taste. This is really important legislation given the context in which we are living and the almost daily intrusion of AI in all our lives, be it online or otherwise.”
“Nobody is arguing against that but people must be fairly treated. With 30,599 from one camera in south Kilkenny, something is wrong. People must be treated fairly. These fines must be rescinded and the penalty points rescinded also.”
“The Tánaiste will recall a couple of weeks ago I raised the issue of the Glenmore static camera where 35,099 fines have been issued in 11 months. There are about 80 cameras across the country which are exactly the same. I have the results for the other ones and it makes for interesting reading: Carlow - 15,880; Mayo - 11,476; Cork - 3,369; Donegal - 2,925; Limerick - 1,051; Gorey - 1,150; and Galway - 397. Bear in mind 30,599 fines were issued from Glenmore, which raised €4.9 million. This is grossly unfair. The staggering and unexplained disparity in fines issued from one camera to the next makes enforcement look inconsistent and deeply unfair. People have lost their licences, their insurance is up and they are receiving multiple penalty points because of the appalling signage. These are welcome and much-needed cameras.”
“When we are now looking to implement those regulatory guardrails in our own State, we need to be certain that we are on firm ground. It is too important to get wrong. As I said at the outset, we in the Labour Party welcome the intent of the Bill, but we simply need to get it absolutely watertight and right. It is far too important not to. I look forward to the Minister of State's response. I commend the principles of the Bill to the House.”
“I invite the Minister of State in her response to engage with the constitutional question directly. These are not peripheral concerns. They go to the central mechanism by which this Bill proposes to enforce the Al Act in Ireland. I appreciate the Bill has been carefully prepared, but careful preparation and constitutional validity are not always the same thing, and on this particular point the Bill, as drafted, is on genuinely uncertain ground. We absolutely need to get this right. Al, as we all know, is rapidly changing the world around us. Regulation is vital to ensure that ordinary people are protected and proper guardrails are in place. That idea is not in conflict with innovation or adoption; it is essential to it. Europe has led the way globally on this.”
“The facts have been found elsewhere by a non-judicial body and the court is required to accept them. The High Court cannot be given a jurisdiction that presupposes the facts have already been found. Taken together, these four concerns point in the same direction. The confirmation mechanism is not a genuine exercise of the judicial function. It is a review of a determination made elsewhere, on a deferential standard with a closed evidential record, in respect of findings of fact that the court is not permitted to revisit. That is not what the Constitution means by the administration of justice. I am also advised that a court exercising that kind of jurisdiction is not curing whatever constitutional deficiency existed in the adjudication process. It is merely adding a judicial gloss to a process that remains, in substance, non-judicial.”
“The fourth concern is that constitutionally it is for the court, and the court alone, to make findings of fact in proceedings with serious consequences. A statute that requires a court to accept as established a fact found by someone who is not a judge, in proceedings that were not a trial, is removing the fact-finding function from the court and that, the Supreme Court said, is unconstitutional. I am advised that the confirmation mechanism in this Bill is open to precisely this objection. The High Court at the confirmation stage is bound to accept the adjudicator’s findings of fact. It cannot go behind them. It cannot hear fresh evidence that contradicts them. It must treat those findings as established and proceed to confirm the fine on that basis, unless the error is fundamental and manifest.”
“It reviews, on a deferential standard, a determination already made by someone else. The parallel with Re Haughey is exact. The adjudicator tries and the High Court merely confirms. The findings of fact are not revisited. The evidence is not re-examined. That is a sentencing hearing, not a trial. I am also advised that it is open to precisely the same constitutional objection that the Supreme Court upheld in Re Haughey, in that the court is being given a jurisdiction to endorse a determination made elsewhere and not a jurisdiction to determine anything itself. If the process before the adjudicator is constitutionally infirm for that reason, nothing the High Court does at the confirmation stage can cure it. A flawed process does not become constitutionally valid because a court subsequently endorses it.”
“What was being sent was effectively a person to be sentenced, and a sentencing hearing before a court that has not itself tried the matter is not an administration of justice. The court was being used as a rubber stamp, not as a decision maker. We can compare that with the confirmation mechanism in this Bill. Under sections 110 to 114, when a fine imposed by an adjudicator is not appealed, the market surveillance authority must apply to the High Court to confirm it. The High Court must confirm unless there is a fundamental and manifest error of law or the fine is clearly excessive or disproportionate. The evidence available to the High Court is limited to what is before the adjudicator and the adjudicator’s findings are binding. The High Court does not rehear the case and it does not make its own findings of fact.”
“Again, by looking to the size of the available penalties, it is very hard to see how this could be classed as a limited exercise of a judicial function. The third concern arises directly from what the Supreme Court said in Re Haughey about the mechanism used in that case to involve the courts. The Dáil committee in that case could certify a person for contempt to the High Court, which then had jurisdiction to punish. The argument was made that this saved the constitutional position. The committee investigated and certified that the court punished, therefore. the judicial function was exercised by the court after all. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, however. It said that what was being sent to the High Court was not a case to be tried. The trial, such as it was, had already taken place.”
“Then, the constitutional rules that govern the administration of justice apply regardless of whether the body is called a court, a committee, a tribunal, or, I would add, an adjudicator. Applied to this Bill, the argument is straightforward. An adjudicator under Part 6 makes findings of fact on whether the company breached the Al Act and, on the basis of those findings, imposes financial consequences of enormous severity on a named legal person. That is, in substance, an administration of justice. The adjudicator is not merely advising, not merely investigating or not merely recommending; the adjudicator is determining. I am advised that a body that determines justiciable controversies with serious consequences for individual rights is administering justice, whatever it is called.”
“Even if one accepted that these are purely administrative rather than criminal penalties, the process of imposing them may still amount to what the Constitution calls an administration of justice, and the Constitution permits only limited functions of a judicial nature to be exercised by non-judicial bodies. Our courts addressed this question directly in a case called Re Haughey in 1971. That case arose from proceedings before a Dáil committee. The Supreme Court held that the label attached to a proceeding does not determine its character. What matters is the substance. Is a body making findings of fact about a named individual, with legal consequences adverse to that individual? If so, the proceeding has the character of an administration of justice.”
“The consent justification, which has some logic in the banking context, is not available here. I should also address directly the argument that because this Bill gives domestic effect to an EU regulation, our domestic constitutional concerns do not apply. That argument does not work in this case. The EU Al Act requires lreland to have a penalty regime, but it does not prescribe how that regime must be structured. The choice to use an adjudicator model with a court confirmation mechanism is an Irish choice, made by the Irish Government, and it falls to be assessed against the Irish Constitution. We cannot borrow the authority of EU law to excuse a domestic structural choice that EU law did not require us to make. The second concern goes deeper and it does not depend on the penalties being characterised as criminal.”
“No court in Ireland has ever had to decide whether a penalty of that magnitude can be described as regulatory rather than punitive. I am advised that when looking at a fine that could put a company out of business entirely, the word regulatory starts to lose its meaning and the constitutional protections that attach to criminal proceedings start to apply. There is also a difficulty with the consent argument that sometimes justifies administrative penalties in other regulated sectors. For banking and financial services, there is at least an argument that companies entering a licensed sector applied for a licence and knew what they were signing up for. That argument simply does not work here. The Al Act applies to anyone who develops, deploys or uses certain types of Al system. There is no licence to apply for.”
“The courts have drawn a distinction, in broad terms, between penalties that are genuinely regulatory in character, aimed at securing compliance with a scheme that the regulated party has voluntarily entered and penalties that are, in substance, punitive, aimed at identifying, denouncing and punishing wrongdoing. These punishment cases require the full protection of a criminal trial before an independent court. The difficulty with this Bill is that the fines it contemplates do not sit comfortably in the regulatory category. They can be absolutely enormous. The Al Act provides for fines of up to €35 million, or 7% of a company’s total worldwide annual turnover, for the most serious of violations. For a large technology company, 7% of global turnover could be billions of euro.”
“It cannot be handed over to a civil servant or regulator or an adjudicator, however well-qualified and however independently they act. The reason is that the independence of the courts and the procedural protections of court proceedings are structural guarantees that protect the citizen from the power of the State. They are not formalities. With that background in mind, let me set out the four concerns we have. The first concerns the nature of the penalties themselves. Our courts recognise that not everything attracting a financial penalty is a criminal matter in the constitutional sense. A fine imposed by Revenue for late filing of a tax return is not a criminal conviction. A penalty imposed by the Central Bank on a financial institution for a regulatory breach is not the same as a criminal prosecution.”
“It provides that these fines are to be determined not by a court, but by a person called an adjudicator who is appointed under the Bill and who operates within the regulatory system. The role of the courts comes late. By the time the courts are involved, the critical decisions have already been made. In Ireland, we have had systems of administrative fines in financial regulation, competition law and data protection for many years. This Bill pushes the model further than it has been pushed before. At some point, the model breaks, not as a matter of legal technicality but as a matter of basic constitutional principle. As the Minister of State knows, our Constitution is built on a separation of powers. The judicial function is reserved to the courts by Article 34 of the Constitution.”
“The Bill aims to implement some of the requirements on member states arising from that legislation as they relate to Ireland. That indeed is a welcome aim, and the establishment of Oifig Intleachta Shaorga na hÉireann is to be welcomed. However, we need to make sure this legislation is watertight. The regulation we put in place needs to be effective and workable. It is in that light that while I support the ambition of the Bill, I want to raise a fundamental concern about one specific part of it. The Bill creates a system of very large financial penalties, fines that in some cases could run to tens of millions of euro or a percentage of a company’s global turnover.”
“That is why the EU AI Act was such an important world first in beginning to put regulatory guard rails on how we use and develop artificial intelligence. It was pushed for by socialists and democrats in Europe who recognise that in the face of a new industrial revolution, we need to put the safety and well-being of citizens first. We need to keep humanity at the centre of AI policy. The EU AI Act is not perfect. There are issues around companies effectively self-designating as high-risk or otherwise and around how it fails to effectively safeguard copyright protections for creatives, to name but two. There are gaps in its definition of high-risk AI uses, such as chatbots used by children. It was, nonetheless, a hugely important step for Europe to take.”
“It is not enough to leave this transformative change in the hands of the tech giants whose sole priority will be the power and profits they hope to reap from this transformation. Regulation is essential. Democratic guard rails are essential. Governments are facing a choice, not between AI or no AI but between AI that serves the people or AI that serves the tech billionaires. The false dichotomy that some powerful interests would paint between regulation of AI, on one hand, and innovation on the other needs to be rejected. AI has the potential to deliver so much good in healthcare and how we deliver services and productivity but to unlock any of those benefits requires public trust. Securing that public trust requires effective regulation.”
“We in the Labour Party welcome the intent of this Bill. We are far from the first to say it, as the Minister of State knows, but the emergence of artificial intelligence could be the most significant societal and economic change we will see in our lifetimes. AI is already reshaping how decisions are made that affect people's lives - decisions about credit, employment, healthcare and policing. It is reshaping our economy, our jobs market, the way we work and, fundamentally, how we live our lives. The pace of change is only set to pick up. Sadly, we see AI almost on a daily basis attacking jobs, particularly in the tech sector. Governments around the world need to recognise the scale of the change and challenge here and respond.”
“The treatment of the Covalen workers has been absolutely toxic. We have workers who have been involved in a company that has made millions as a result of their work, including moderating, as Deputy Boyd Barrett alluded to, yet this company is treating its workers with such disregard by offering two weeks statutory pay and saying they are getting bonuses as a goodwill gesture. They have already earned these bonuses, which were due to them anyway. The notion that we would allow a company to act in this manner, given the profits it makes, is absolutely disgraceful. As a Parliament, we have to do something about this.”
“Given the pace of change in the tech industry, what new or expanded reskilling programmes, particularly in the area of AI, cybersecurity and advanced digital skills, will be funded to help displaced workers transition quickly into high-demand roles? I know my colleagues will speak in particular about Covalen but the tech industry is under attack from AI. While AI may have many benefits, the Department needs to seriously look at redundancies in that industry.”
“The issue of mass redundancies in the tech sector is very live at the minute. One of the companies we are speaking about this morning is Covalen. The actions of this company have been far from savoury in terms of the treatment of the employees it is making redundant. It has rejected calls for better severance packages and declined a request to start the process of voluntary rather than compulsory lay-offs. The tech industry faces major structural issues mainly as a result of AI. We have seen it across the board. However, the actions of Covalen are particularly sinister in the treatment of its employees. It is making bonus payments available as a gesture of goodwill, but these bonuses had already been earned by the workers.”
“Where there are vast solar farms, and there is one in Gusserane in Wexford, people have no real problem; however, they do have a problem in a very rural area where 100 battery energy storage system, BESS, batteries are being installed, each the size of a container. We have to look into this again.”
“They do not have the money. One of the things I have proposed in the past is a fair deal-type scheme for retrofitting, whereby the Government would invest to ensure the people have access. There is no use having a great scheme if people cannot access it. There is a great scheme, but you have to have tens of thousands of euro in addition to the grant. The Government's own policies are making the situation worse. The CRU's large energy user connection policy, the private wires legislation and the proposed LNG terminal all point in the same direction: more fossil fuels. The Climate Change Advisory Council has already warned that all new renewable energy is being swallowed up by new data centre demand.”
“A recent UN report described Ireland as a cautionary tale for the environmental impact of data centres. That should alarm every single Member of this House. We now have over 22% of our electricity consumed by data centres, and this is projected to rise to 30% by 2030, and potentially to an unbelievable 55% if growth continues unchecked. That would mean data centres would be using more electricity than every home, farm, small business, hospital and school in the country combined. The Minister spoke about retrofitting. Retrofitting would be a most welcome addition to every home in the country. However, when you ask people to come up with €30,000, €40,000 or €50,000 in matching funding, you might as well be asking them for €1 million. They just do not have it. It is too expensive for ordinary decent working people to invest in.”