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 7 of 11.
“This question is to ask whether the Minister will outline the measures being taken to strengthen existing animal welfare laws and enforcement mechanisms and whether his Department intends to engage with campaign representatives to progress the aims of the proposed Stout's law and if he will make a statement on the matter.”
“It is great to see it but it is not the Government paying the minimum wage; it is the small businesses it purports to support. It is wonderful to see increases and we want to head towards the living wage but do not trumpet an increase in the minimum wage when it is businesses that will pay it. People, in some instances, will suffer as a result of earning the minimum wage and not qualifying for any assistance, particularly when it comes to housing. We have to do an awful lot better if we are to support those who support us, that is, the workers of this country. Go raibh maith agaibh.”
“I have seen numerous times where people in receipt of that payment, which is supposed to take them out of poverty, have it added to their income to put them above the threshold and immediately put them back into poverty because they are thrown to the wolves of the private rental market. Out of an annual household income of about €40,000 or €41,000 for two people on minimum wage, they are expected to pay maybe €1,500 of that into the private rental sector. Those are Wexford figures; it is worse in other areas. The notion the budget was good for the tens of thousands of people who go out to work day in, day out, who pay tax and who contribute to the economy, is nonsensical. We saw a rise in the minimum wage and the Government trumpeted that increase.”
“In reality, hard-working families on low pay, hard-working individuals trying their best and hard-working people on minimum wage have no hope of ever owning their own home; neither do they have any hope of getting any assistance from the State in the form of the housing assistance payment or being allowed to go on housing lists. In Wexford, for instance, two people earning the minimum wage are about €4,000 over the threshold for the housing list. I have raised this issue before. There is a ludicrous situation involving people in receipt of working family payment. That payment is added to their household income when assessment is being made of that income for the housing list.”
“It was trumpeted that small operators in the hospitality sector will benefit but if the customers who enter those premises cannot afford to go out and spend on meals or entertainment because they are put to the pin of their collar week in, week out they will not be in a position to spend to assist the hospitality sector. They will not have the money because of the rising costs across the board, yet they were left with their hands hanging after this budget. We have heard much fanfare of various housing schemes being introduced.”
“This was a budget where workers were left behind. We had no personal income tax relief for workers. Hard-working families - the backbone of our economy and the people who keep our economy going, ticking over and working - were left with their hands hanging. We saw a reduction in the VAT rate. Many millions of that will go to multinational chains. I have heard descriptions of franchises run by families but the bottom line is the likes of McDonald's, no matter where they are, are among the most successful and profitable businesses in this country.”
“This mattress was originally approved back in March in a conversation with the autism liaison nurse. Someone was even paid to travel from Belfast to Wexford to measure up for the mattress. When I raised this matter, the response I got stated that the assistant director of public health nursing presented the purchase of a mattress for Josh to the resource allocation group but the RAG declined to approve funding because no clinical need for a mattress was identified. This is absolutely appalling treatment of a family with what is essentially a child of 23 years of age who is non-verbal and incontinent. Please, we need intervention in cases like this.”
“In a week when hundreds of millions of euro were gifted to burger barons and builders, although the Tánaiste may disagree with that characterisation, I will raise an example of the reality that many on the ground are encountering. I was contacted by the Furlong family in Duncormick in Wexford. I have their permission to raise this issue on behalf of their son, Josh, who is 23, has severe non-verbal autism and is doubly incontinent. The mattress he has been sleeping on for the last ten years needs replacing. It is a waterproof mattress used for people who are incontinent. The mattress was originally supplied by the HSE. The family have been trying to get it replaced since January 2024. Josh wakes several times a night because of the condition the mattress is in. When the sheet is changed, it becomes wet as well.”
“That is what the Government is acceding to by refusing to accept this non-radical, very simple proposal of a Bill to improve the lot of workers and workers’ rights. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, to go back to the Fine Gael Minister of State who has thrown her under the bus. I ask her to get him to reflect. I knew when the Minister of State was reading it out that her heart and soul were certainly not in the text that was on that sheet. That is not her style. I urge her to go back to her colleagues in government and ask them to respect the rights of low-paid workers in this country, in a sector that needs it most. I ask her to reflect on the history of the great party that she comes from and on a man who did so much for this country. He wanted to establish mechanisms to support workers’ rights.”
“This Government is clearly not representing workers in areas like the hotel sector. The Minister of State said it is premature. In 1909 and 1946, mechanisms were introduced into this country, even when we were under British rule and later by Seán Lemass, to ensure that workers in low-paid sectors got their representation. They were not looking for the moon. They were looking for decent, honourable representation. How did the powerful employers get around that? They said they would ignore the whole set-up, employ their legal advisers to tell them what to do, and ignore the whole set-up and not play any role or part in it. Therefore, for the little guy - the man or woman working in a hotel on low pay – the employers can walk all over them. That is what we are doing.”
“What is adversarial is when powerful employers refuse to engage in a mechanism that has worked in other sectors. In her response, the Minister of State spoke about the childcare and security sectors, and how they had seen great improvements in their conditions. The reason they saw great improvements in their conditions was because both sides engaged with the JLC process. The Minister of State is sort of arguing against herself, or the piece of paper she is reading from is arguing against itself, by saying that that was great but, God, we cannot allow adversarial situations to come up, and we must avoid any legal proceedings that may take place following a binding agreement that is reached in a JLC in a respectful manner. We could do with Winston back - the British bulldog - to say to Irish workers: “I will represent you”.”
“He must be spinning in his grave as he hears that the Government is opposing this long overdue Bill and, in doing so, is effectively supporting powerful employers to ride roughshod over undervalued and underpaid workers in this State. As I said, I do not think the Minister of State's heart is in the response she gave, to be honest. I do not think that, when reading it, she was committed to what was in that response. As I said, I think she has been thrown under the bus. This is a shocking admission by the Government that it is not going to support underpaid and undervalued workers, and it is going to facilitate powerful employers to veto a structure that was set up in 1946 by Seán Lemass to facilitate workers being represented at JLCs. The Minister of State spoke about it being adversarial.”
“I never thought I would see the day when I would stand in this august Chamber and say that Winston Churchill appeared to have more affinity and commitment to the workers of Ireland than the Fianna Fáil party and this Government. In 1909, Winston Churchill brought in the trade boards so that underrepresented, undervalued and underpaid workers could be represented by the trade boards. In 1946, this was dealt with by a man who must be spinning in his grave, a man who sat in this Chamber, a man of the Fianna Fáil Party who did so many wonderful things for this country at a time when we needed it most, Seán Lemass.”
“I will come clean and say it: there is nothing radical in this Bill. We are not asking for any major overhaul of the industrial relations system here. All we are asking for is a simple, common sense step that will make a real difference. It is a step that will restore the original intent of the Oireachtas from when joint labour committees were first legislated for back in 1946. It is a step that will give so many workers across the country the seat at the table they deserve. It is a step that would benefit all of us. I urge colleagues across the House to stand up for collective bargaining and workers across the country by supporting this Bill. Go raibh míle maith agat.”
“In October 2022, the high-level group on collective bargaining, which included IBEC and ICTU, published its final report. It made it clear that the robustness and effectiveness of this statutory mechanism had been impacted by employer disengagement in relation to the operation of the JLC system in several sectors. The time has never been more urgent to stand up for collective bargaining. The Government has delayed and dithered too long. We cannot sit on our hands any longer while too many workers are left voiceless in the face of low pay and poor conditions. The Government has promised an action plan, as it is required to deliver under the terms of the EU's directive. That is very much welcome. Today, however, the Government has the opportunity to take real, decisive action by backing this Bill.”
“Thus, the unfortunate loophole that has emerged since the Irish Hotels Federation legal proceedings would be closed. Under this Bill, employers would no longer be able to veto the establishment of a JLC simply by refusing to play ball. Of course, we would all hope the backstop powers given to the court by this Bill could be used sparingly and employers would engage with the JLC process in the correct spirit. We must be clear, however, that where they fail to do so, we would step in to ensure the workers in those underrepresented and often underpaid sectors that need JLCs the most get their shot at a fair deal. Without this Bill, JLCs will be forever hamstrung. We will lose a crucial pillar of our industrial relations framework and will fall yet further behind our neighbours on workers' rights.”
“If the court was satisfied it was not possible to appoint such representatives to a JLC and that the employers or workers concerned were operating in a way aimed at ensuring effective regulation of pay and conditions could not take place, the Bill would allow the court to make its own proposals for an employment regulation order. Those proposals would need to take into account the legitimate financial and commercial interests of the employers in the sector, the desirability of fair and sustainable minimum rates of pay appropriate to the sector and the general level of wages in comparable sectors. When the court has finished those proposals, it would then forward them to the Minister, who would deal with them just as though they were the proposals of a JLC.”
“When facing such an impasse, the court will then be able to appoint the people it views as representative of the interests of the relevant employers or workers. The key purpose is to emphasise that while the members appointed will be representative of the interests of the employer or workers' side, they need not necessarily be their representatives. That crucial distinction would make clear that there can be no veto on the employer's or worker's side. The court would review the membership of the committee from time to time to ensure it continued to be representative.”
“In this and other sectors, employers are actively boycotting the JLC process, undermining this keystone of our industrial relations system and depriving their employees of their right to collective bargaining. The Irish Hotels Federation years-long boycott has left workers in the hotel sector without a voice at the table. That is a travesty for those workers and it is bad for the sector's good employers that want to play a fair game. Boycotts like that leave us with a race to the bottom. That is why I believe the Bill is so vital. It would enact new provisions on the constitution of JLCs. These will apply in a case where the Labour Court seeks to consult an organisation of employers or workers but is met with refusal to engage on the appointment of members to a JLCs.”
“We are left with an employer's veto and, with that, the reality that powerful employers can simply sidestep and ignore what should be a crucial pillar of our industrial relations infrastructure and a crucial tool for underpaid and under-represented workers to get a place around the table to negotiate for a better deal. We are all the worse off for it. In some sectors, like security and childcare, JLCs have continued to work well. We have seen their results in legally binding employment regulation orders, setting fair floors for wages and working conditions. They have helped to root out rogue operators and stop unfair competition based on low pay where a bad employer is undercut by a worse one. The hotel sector is a case in point.”
“How could the system ever have got off the ground if it would all collapse where the employers refuse to tog out? That is, unfortunately, what we have been left with after the legal proceedings brought a decade ago by the Irish Hotels Federation when the then Minister aimed to reconstitute a JLC in the hotel sector. In preparing to oppose the Irish Hotels Federation case, the State effectively conceded that in the absence of employer's representation, the JLC could not be constituted and, furthermore, that the decision to take part in negotiations under a JLC framework was voluntary. The legal proceedings were struck out and the case ended before it reached the court. Those legal proceedings cast a long shadow. We are now left in a situation far removed from what the original drafters of the trade board or JLC system envisaged.”
“It was an effective way to make sure that workers in sectors with low levels of representation benefited from collective bargaining and were able to negotiate for better wages and conditions. However, it relied on certain assumptions. Whether it was the somewhat unlikely figure of Winston Churchill in 1909 or Seán Lemass in 1946, the originators of the law that underpinned the first trade boards, and then the JLCs, clearly understood that these were bodies aimed at providing the opportunity for bargaining in the sectors with the lowest levels of representation and some of the worst conditions. They clearly understood these as operating across industry and sectors and with the involvement of employers and workers. However, what they clearly did not have in mind was an employer's veto.”
“That reality led to the genesis of the trade board system, which aimed to guarantee minimum standards and conditions across those industries by providing a form of collective bargaining to the workers in those under-unionised sectors. These trade boards took the form of bargaining bodies, including representatives of employers and workers. They were empowered to set binding minimum wages and conditions across a particular sector. That system proved to be durable and was further refined with the Industrial Relations Act 1946. That Act saw the trade boards become JLCs. Their members would be appointed by the Labour Court after the Minister had established that a particular sector had inadequate machinery to effectively regulate pay and conditions.”
“When that action plan comes, it must be ambitious and clear and do what it says on the tin, namely, contain real and measurable actions. The Bill before us represents one simple action we must take by ensuring that JLCs can once again function as they were always intended to. We can take a big step towards ending the race to the bottom that we see far too often in far too many industries. Well over 100 years ago, it was the Government in London that recognised that across Britain and Ireland there were too many workers in industries that were subject to chronically low pay and poor conditions. Those industries typically had very poor or, indeed, non-existent trade union representation.”
“Of course, that is not just bad for those workers; it is bad for our whole society. The economic, social and environmental benefits of collective bargaining have long been clear.. When employers deny employees the chance to bargain collectively, they are not just denying the rights of those workers in particular; they are actively holding our country back and suppressing wages across whole sectors. Ireland has a particularly low rate of collective bargaining coverage. Just 34% of our workers currently benefit from collective bargaining arrangements, compared with an EU average of 56%. We know the EU directive on adequate minimum wages calls on member states with low coverage to lay out their path to 80% and that the Government is soon to unveil an action plan to that effect.”
“The Bill would provide a fix and in doing so would protect this important part of our industrial relations framework for the future. By enacting a simple backstop allowing the Labour Court to step in where there is a refusal to engage with a JLC, we can not only protect the rights of every worker to collective bargaining but ensure that the express will of the Oireachtas can no longer be subverted. As we debate this Bill today, it is important that we be cognisant of the wider landscape of collective bargaining in Ireland in 2025. Sadly, Ireland's voluntarist system marks us as outliers in the industrialised western world. The weak legal protections we provide to workers with regard to collective bargaining allow employers to simply refuse to engage with trade unions or workers.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." It is a privilege to be able to bring this vital Bill before the House on Second Stage. We have a chance today to make clear our commitment to standing up for the most fundamental of rights, the right to bargain collectively for better conditions, pay and a fairer workplace. This is also an opportunity to protect a long-standing successful institution by righting a wrong. Joint labour committees, JLCs, and their precursors have been an important pillar of collective bargaining in this country for over a century. Due to legal proceedings a decade ago, their very viability stands at risk. An employer's veto over the operation of JLCs undermines their purpose. That is what we are left with following that legal case.”
“Let us be remembered not just as the people and the parliamentarians who talked about impact but as the people and the Parliament that traded for it. When we invest in social enterprise, we invest in people, potential and progress. We invest in the women who start sewing co-operatives in their community, the man who turns his prison experience into a mentoring programme for at-risk youth, the young people who build climate solutions from the ground up. When we are doing this, we are investing in this country, in an Ireland that is fairer, greener, kinder and stronger. Today, we must say to all social entrepreneurs that we see them, believe in them, stand with them and, most of all, invest in them. Let us act, lead and trade for impact.”
“That is the Ireland we must build together because social enterprise is not just the responsibility of one Department. It is the opportunity of every Department. It touches health, education, environment, justice and enterprise. It is cross-cutting, cross-sectoral and cross-community and I am delighted to say that it is growing. Across Europe, social enterprise is gaining momentum. Ireland must not just follow but can and must lead. We can and must be the country that proves that business can be inclusive, that trade can be transformative and that impact can be the bottom line. Let us not just settle for policy on paper. Let us deliver policy in practice. Let us fund, support and celebrate social enterprise, not as a niche but as a national priority.”
“They can be and often are the engines of equality and they do so with dignity. I personally know young women who have found employment in social enterprises in Wexford after years of addiction. There are dozens of people like them who have been given an opportunity, a second chance that they grabbed with both hands. These are not just stories. They are transformations and they are happening every day thanks to social enterprise. Imagine what more we could do with real investment, support and belief. Imagine a country where every town has a thriving social enterprise hub, where every school teaches the principle of ethical business, where every Department embeds social value into its contracts, and where every citizen knows that trade can be a tool for justice.”
“Social enterprise should not be a mystery. It should be a mainstream option. We must integrate it into our schools, universities and business courses. We must inspire the next generation to see business not just as a career but as a calling. We must also measure what matters. Impact is not always visible on a balance sheet but it is felt in lives changed, communities strengthened and hope restored. We need robust frameworks to capture that impact; to tell the stories, prove the value and make the case for continued support because, as we know, the case is very strong. Social enterprises also create jobs, often for those furthest from the labour market. They tackle social inclusion, rural isolation and environmental degradation. They build community resilience and foster civic engagement.”
“We must embed social clauses into procurement policy so contracts reward not just efficiency but equity. We must build ecosystems. Social enterprises thrive when they are connected to mentors, to investors and to policymakers. I was delighted recently to bring Kafe Konnect together with the Wexford Chamber with a view to it acting as a mentor for the team. Collaboration like this brings so much more than business mentoring. It breaks down barriers and develops relationships and respect that might never have happened. We need regional hubs, incubators and networks that foster collaboration and innovation. We need to ensure that rural social enterprises are not left behind, that minority-led initiatives are uplifted and that every corner of Ireland feels the benefit of trading for impact. We must also educate.”
“I have spoken before in this Chamber about the wonderful Kafe Konnect in Wexford and how it transforms the lives of people and, at the same time, operates a top-class social enterprise in the heart of Wexford town. It is essential that we continue to invest, not just in projects, but in people. Social entrepreneurs are among the most passionate and resilient leaders in our country, but passion alone cannot pay the rent. We need the dedicated funding streams that support start-up, scale-up and sustainability. We need the multi-annual funding models that allow for long-term planning, not short-term survival. We must also reform procurement. Too often, social enterprises are locked out of public contracts because they cannot compete on price alone. What about value? What about impact? What about the social return on investment?”
“We have acknowledged that social enterprise is not a fringe idea but is central to the kind of Ireland we want to build. Let us be honest, however. We are only at the beginning. This policy is a foundation, not a finish line. It sets the stage but our performance is yet to come. If we are serious about unlocking the full potential of social enterprise, we must go further. We must be braver and bolder because the challenges are very real. Social enterprises face barriers that traditional businesses do not. They often operate in areas of deep disadvantage, with limited access to capital, infrastructure or skilled labour. They are driven by mission but constrained by resources. We ask them to do more with less. Yet, they persist, they innovate, they uplift and they transform.”
“They are the organisations that see a problem and build a solution, not for profit alone but for impact. As the document says, social enterprises play an important role in promoting social inclusion and equality, providing supports and employment opportunities to more marginalised groups and minorities, such as the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, migrants, the Traveller community and former offenders. They can address societal issues, such as food poverty, housing provision and the environment. With this policy, Ireland has taken a bold step. However, it will only be a bold step if we make a concerted effort to make it work. We have recognised social enterprise as a distinct and vital sector. We have committed to raising awareness, improving access to supports and building capacity.”
“I am glad to speak on the issue of Ireland's national social enterprise policy and to reflect on its deeper promise, its transformative potential and the urgent need to elevate it from policy to practice, from vision to reality. This should not be just a policy. It should be a philosophy which says that business can be more than profit, that trade can be rooted in purpose and that communities can be empowered not by charity but by opportunity. Social enterprises are the quiet revolutionaries of our economy. They are the community cafés that employ people with addiction issues or those disabilities, the recycling hubs that tackle both waste and unemployment and the youth programmes that give hope to those who have been told they have none.”
“We need problem solvers and not problem finders. Let us be the generation of parliamentarians that ended child homelessness and refused to accept that child poverty is inevitable. Let us be the generation that looked into the eyes of every child and said: “You matter, you are seen, you are loved and you will not be left behind”. I urge every Member of this House to support this motion not out of political obligation but out of human decency. I ask the Government to reflect on its opposition to this motion because every child deserves a warm bed, a full belly and future filled with possibilities.”
“It also means listening to the parents who feel forgotten, the teachers who see daily the effects of poverty, and the children themselves who are wise beyond their years because their life has made them grow up too fast. It also means we need courage that we will not allow the famous market forces to solve this because we all know that will never happen. We see it daily. We need the courage to say that charity alone is not enough, and to legislate boldly to fund generously and act decisively. This is not just about economics; it is also about values. What kind of Ireland do we want? Do we want an Ireland that turns away from suffering or one that meets it head-on with compassion and resolve? We have the resources - God knows we have more resources than we have ever had - and we have the knowledge. What we need is the will.”
“This reduction in VAT will benefit those businesses with the highest of turnovers such as McDonald's, KFC or Burger King and will certainly not be passed on to customers or reflected in better pay and conditions for workers. Nor will it address the underlying issues facing the hospitality sector, as the motion says. Supporting this motion means building homes - not just units - and communities. It means ensuring that no child goes to school hungry. It means increasing social supports so that families are not forced to choose between rent and food. It means investing in wraparound services, mental health, education and healthcare, all of which lifts children out of crisis and into possibility.”
“Poverty is not just about income; it is about exclusion and shame. It is about children who cannot afford to go on school trips, who wear shoes with holes or soles falling off, or who pretend they are not hungry because they know their parents are doing their best. It is about the silent suffering that too often goes unseen. When we see it we have to act. As this motion states, the ESRI research shows that one in five children, over 225,000, live in families below the poverty line when housing costs are accounted for. How can this Government justify spending over €630 million a year to reduce VAT on food and catering hospitality while the number of children living in consistent poverty and homelessness continues to increase?”
“If we are not here to protect the most vulnerable - the child sleeping in a car, the child missing meals, the children who think they do not matter - then what is the purpose of this Chamber? This motion, which sadly the Government is opposing, is not just a policy proposal; it is a moral reckoning. It is a call to conscience and a demand that we stop managing this crisis and start ending it. We have to stop treating homelessness as a housing issue alone. This is a childhood issue and an issue of trauma and justice. A child who grows up without a stable home is more likely to suffer from anxiety, fall behind in school or face lifelong disadvantage. This is not just a personal tragedy, it is a national failure and it is a failure that is happening on our watch and that of the Government.”
“It gives me no great pleasure this morning to stand in this historic Chamber not just as a public representative but as a citizen of this nation deeply troubled by the reality that in our modern democratic republic, children are going to bed hungry, cold and without a place to call home. Let us all let that sink in. In 2025 thousands of children are homeless – 5,000 children - and thousands more live in poverty so deep it robs them of their dignity, potential and hope. These are not distant problems. They are happening in our constituencies, schools, hospitals and streets. They are happening on our watch and on this Government’s watch and of that of the government before it. What are we doing about it?”
“It is not going to break the bank in the context of the overall budgetary situation. I urge the Minister of State to go to his colleague and tell him that this is about fairness and equality for the children aged under nine who do not access public services.”
“However, Ministers arrive with great fanfare at these announcements but then tell us that they are not involved in the day-to-day operation, and it is the NTA's issue. The notion that we would have one set of children being able to benefit from something in this country while others are told, "Sorry, you make your own way", is a bit ludicrous in the context of equality and fairness. I am sure there is a case to be taken and won somewhere. For the amount involved and the fiscal impact this will have, and the return we would get, it is ludicrous for a Minister to wash his hands off it and say: "Look, it is nothing to do with me. I will announce any initiatives. I will take the pat on the back, but when it comes to actually making a decision that is down to the NTA." That is absolutely ridiculous. This is a simple request.”
“I appreciate the Minister of State is here with a prepared script not of his making, but from the Department. To say on an issue like this that the Minister is not involved in the day-to-day running is a lame excuse in the context of what I am asking. Effectively what is happening here is discriminatory. The Government is saying to children and their families who reside in an area where we a public transport system is readily available that they can benefit from this, but it is saying to children who do not have that luxury and live in largely rural areas sadly that we are not going to extend it to the bus operator that they have access to. I acknowledge that very good work has been done and very good initiatives have been introduced. The Minister of State has outlined these in the area of children from the ages of five to eight.”
“I respectfully ask that this move be taken by the Minister for Transport and his Department in an effort to introduce and maintain equality for those people across the country who have no access to public transport at a time when we have commercial bus operators that are trying to compete, unfairly, in this regard. If a child under the age of nine is travelling, he or she gets used to travelling on public transport, but their families also travel with them, which is a success story for everybody. I urge the Minister for Transport to carry out the move I am suggesting.”
“There is also strong public support for it following the findings of a recent survey. The key figures and costs indicate that after adjusted fare levels and even factoring in occasional long-distance trips, the total cost for the entire country is unlikely to exceed €1 million annually. Large swathes of this country have either a non-existent or a very poor public transport service and are dependent on private bus operators. To exclude children under nine years who cannot avail of public transport and who depend on private operators is just not fair. There is no equality. The inclusion of commercial operators in the free travel scheme for under-nines would deliver strong social value at minimal fiscal cost. It would also align directly with the Department's objectives on equality and accessibility.”
“Commercial bus operators are already integrated into the Leap card infrastructure and participate in the free travel and young adult card schemes, so there is no requirement for any additional technological investment or major operational overhauls to implement this extension. The system is ready and the commercial operators are ready, willing and able to deliver. A report was compiled by Jim Power in 2024. It was commissioned by the Coach Tourism & Transport Council of Ireland. The report highlighted that unequal application of fare supports is creating an uneven playing field between public service operators and licensed commercial operators. Extending free travel to under-nines on commercial buses is a practical step that would improve competitive fairness while directly benefiting thousands of families.”
“Those relying on commercial bus operators often reside in rural or underserved areas of the country, and they are excluded. This creates a two-tier system that is inconsistent with broader policy goals on transport, equity and inclusion. The inclusion of the commercial bus operators would ensure fairness for all families, regardless of geography or the service providers. For those children who reside in areas where public transport is not always available – we all know those areas – it would support a broader modal shift by fostering a culture of public transport use from an early age.”
“This issue pertains to the extension and expansion of the free travel scheme for under-nines to include and involve commercial bus operators. It aims to build on the Department of Transport's expansion of the fare reduction scheme introduced in recent years. If we are to have equity, equality and fairness, it is essential that this modest but impactful extension would include children under the age of nine travelling on commercial buses operated by companies within the free travel scheme. It would also address a growing disparity between PSO and commercial services. It would ensure equitable access for children across the country and reinforce the national commitment to increasing public transport usage and reducing car dependency.”