James Geoghegan
Dublin Bay South · Fine Gael · Ireland
“I say, in a non-partisan way, that it would be helpful if other political parties carried out an exercise similar to the one we are carrying out and if they presented different papers.”
“I welcome the opportunity to debate such a significant issue. It is helpful that this debate is being framed from a line Department perspective in that it has begun by looking at the fiscal implications of a united Ireland. It would be helpful if we also had a debate on the implications for education and health of a united Ireland.”
“Obviously, none of that will be sufficient unless we can demonstrate to every community in Northern Ireland that the country will be an inclusive place, but we in Ireland have shown just how inclusive we can be. I am 41 years old.”
“With the passage of time, however, any fair and impartial observer would recognise that institutional benefit of ensuring that Ireland and the United Kingdom had a joint role in the affairs of Northern Ireland proved to be instrumental in all the subsequent peace agreements we ultimately arrived at.”
“However, nobody can underestimate the challenges the State faces in persuading a population that is very sceptical that we would we welcome them to this country and that we could provide a state that would function.”
“He highlighted the euro, which is important. If we think back to the Scottish referendum, one of the biggest reasons it failed was because the Scottish people were not certain whether they were going to have the British pound or the euro.”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for James Geoghegan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“However, nobody can underestimate the challenges the State faces in persuading a population that is very sceptical that we would we welcome them to this country and that we could provide a state that would function. What we can do right now - I think that is what the Tánaiste's contribution and these statements have commenced - is to talk to the people of this State and say to them that there are things that need to be contemplated at line Department level. We need to convince them that we are looking at what they fear and at the risks involved in order that we can be ready to talk to those to whom I refer. At the same time, we have to continue to engage by means of the shared island initiative and to keep building relationships at a community level in order to support everyone on this island.”
“We have an awful lot to offer. We hold the Presidency of the European Union. There are an awful lot of young people in Northern Ireland and the Republic who see the opportunities offered by having direct membership of the European Union. It is true that as a result of the negotiations relating to Brexit, we did a lot to protect Northern Ireland’s interests in terms of its relationship with Europe, but those people want to be part of the European Union. They feel Irish and they feel European. Many in the middle ground unionism recognise our affinity with Europe, and that would speak to them in a way that would be persuasive to their ideals.”
“Obviously, none of that will be sufficient unless we can demonstrate to every community in Northern Ireland that the country will be an inclusive place, but we in Ireland have shown just how inclusive we can be. I am 41 years old. Thinking back, there is such a difference between Dublin city now and Dublin city 20 or 30 years ago, particularly when one considers that in that one in four of those who live in Dublin are not originally from Ireland. We have demonstrated that we are a much more inclusive city and a much more inclusive country and that the history that would perhaps have scared many of those in the Protestant and unionist communities in Northern Ireland has been shed by people south of the Border. We do not have the burden of sectarianism and one particular church dominating our views and policies.”
“I have said I am a constitutional nationalist like every single person in this Chamber but every Irish person from a very young age up has a strong connection to this idea of unity and they want to see all their elected politicians within this State speaking to that aspiration. It is up to us to be able to demonstrate that this aspiration can bear fruit. We can demonstrate to an older generation that there is nothing to be fearful about when it comes to the implications relating to the cost involved, to health or to education. The only way we can do that is by having a constructive debate in this Chamber and by adopting the approach of having a line Department look at these issues.”
“He highlighted the euro, which is important. If we think back to the Scottish referendum, one of the biggest reasons it failed was because the Scottish people were not certain whether they were going to have the British pound or the euro. They were not certain of the sovereignty of the new Scotland and what relationship it would have with the British monarchy in future. They were not certain either about defence, which was perhaps an even more important issue for them than would be the case on this island. We can learn from the outcome of a debate that was on a knife-edge; a flip of a coin and Scotland would have been independent. Something else we know from that referendum is just how much it stirs people’s interest in politics from a young age.”
“I say, in a non-partisan way, that it would be helpful if other political parties carried out an exercise similar to the one we are carrying out and if they presented different papers. Let us demonstrate to those in Northern Ireland that we do care about the community they believe in and that we believe in their aspirations for a united Ireland. Let us also demonstrate to those who are perhaps sceptical but not opposed to a united Ireland that down here we are thinking about it and about the implications it would have for their lives and livelihoods. As the Tánaiste outlined, there are always going to be different costs if you assess these things on a static basis but he also highlighted the opportunity of the services we have in our economy, an all-island service economy and recognising the enormous benefits that could bring.”
“We are sitting in this Chamber because of the sacrifices so many people made in the pursuit of a united Ireland. That has been the long-term aspiration of this State since its establishment and, I think, of every political party whose members have sat in this Chamber since that date. This is an emotive connection to our island that travels through all of us. It is something that is far greater than the practical implications. If and when the moment arrives, pursuant to the Good Friday Agreement, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says it is time to have a referendum on unity, let us have our ducks in a row. Let us have a properly constructed debate.”
“With the passage of time, however, any fair and impartial observer would recognise that institutional benefit of ensuring that Ireland and the United Kingdom had a joint role in the affairs of Northern Ireland proved to be instrumental in all the subsequent peace agreements we ultimately arrived at. That kind of legacy and philosophy is important. We need to build on both if we are going to have a constructive debate on a united Ireland. The debate must be built based on real pillars and actual things, including what the practical implications are across education, health and finance. Of course, the aspiration for a united Ireland goes way beyond those issues. It is the foundation of our State. It is what I think most of us, if not every single person who has been elected to this House, believes in.”
“I welcome the opportunity to debate such a significant issue. It is helpful that this debate is being framed from a line Department perspective in that it has begun by looking at the fiscal implications of a united Ireland. It would be helpful if we also had a debate on the implications for education and health of a united Ireland. When the Tánaiste spoke earlier in his capacity as Minister for Finance and our party leader earlier, he began the debate by contemplating how we can be more constructive in relation to how we are going to deliver a united Ireland. He also did so at our commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Garret FitzGerald, who, of course, was instrumental in the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was vociferously opposed by, I think, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and most unionists.”
“In 21 of the 27 EU member states, there are cities that charge a visitor accommodation levy. Dublin is an outlier because we do not do that. In Dublin right now, we have the highest performing hotel market in Europe, which is a good thing and which demonstrates the strength of our tourism industry. The Dublin city task force is already making great progress and has acquired the Carlton site. The long-term funding of Dublin city could be supported by the introduction of a modest tourist accommodation levy. The Dublin city task force sits in the Taoiseach's Department, and there is an oversight committee. What can he tell us about the progress that has been made in looking at this issue and with regard to the prospect of local authorities such as Dublin City Council being given the capacity to raise a tourist accommodation levy?”
“We have to seriously consider the growing number of kids presenting in Temple Street and examine what is taking place in other jurisdictions. It is an issue being discussed among neurosurgeons across the world. In Queensland they have to wear helmets but it does not make much of a difference in terms of the children presenting. It is the e-scooters, the road surface and the kids using the e-scooters on the road surface.”
“There is the glaring reality that we in these Houses and the Government have to be honest about - a law was passed in 2024 to regulate e-scooters. Some countries have no regulation of e-scooters but what has actually happened since we made e-scooters legal to purchase in Ireland is that more children have life-long head injuries and are showing up in Temple Street. That is the regulatory regime we in these Houses passed. This is despite every effort by the Garda and others to encourage parents not to purchase e-scooters for their kids - they should not have them. I see in my own constituency gardaí seizing e-scooters right, left and centre. Parents get very upset when they are seized and the gardaí get it in the neck from them. There is very little from an operational point of view that anybody can do.”
“There are children with head injuries in Temple Street Hospital, and the number has been growing at a significant rate since the regulation of e-scooters in Ireland.”
“It is not the Minister of State’s fault. He is here to read out the responses he has been given. It is, though, a really pathetic response from the Department of Transport to say it "does not retain specific data on these issues". To be fair to the Minister of State in the Department, Deputy Canney, he has stated publicly what is being done in trying to examine every measure to respond to this issue. In fairness to him, I know how aware he is of the injuries. We need to take decisive action. There are no easy answers. A draconian ban is perhaps not conducive to mobility in this city. However, we need to look urgently at licensing the use of e-scooters because the facts are what the facts are.”
“If they are in a children’s hospital, they are all necessarily under the age of 16. This is something we need to tackle urgently, even if this includes going to the level of mandatory insurance for e-scooters.”
“A lot of us have submitted Topical Issue matters on related issues. I want to focus on the number of children presenting in Temple Street Hospital with head injuries from the use of e-scooters. This is an issue that we have heard the clinicians, in particular, Irwin Gill, neurodisability consultant, speak out on for some time. It is now, however, becoming acute. One of the statistics I find most concerning is that all these child injuries and long-term head injuries have all happened since the legalisation of e-scooters. Before we had e-scooters and a regulatory regime for them in May 2024, kids were not suffering these head injuries. They were not getting access to the e-scooters. It is important to note that all the kids being treated by Irwin Gill and others in Temple Street Hospital are not supposed to be using these e-scooters.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I ask her to clarify, hopefully before the clock runs out, what is contemplated by an order as distinct from a direction under sections 10 and 11. Does the concept of an order or the concept of a direction, and that level of flexibility afforded to the Minister in this Bill, derive from specific sections of the EU regulation that we are implementing or is this a domestic measure that we are adding? Is it the Minister of State’s intention that an order or a direction would never be taken unless it was an action adopted at an EU-wide level? Does she contemplate orders or directions being issued that relate to domestic policy measures or would this happen only when it is done in concert at an EU level?”
“There is also the separate point I am making that if the Minister is accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of the directions, a formal statutory role be given to the AI committee and that this be contemplated in the context of any provisions that might be put forward in the personal data Bill the Minister of State referred to earlier.”
“The AI office in my view is the appropriate body to do it. Where there is this statutory function where the Minister can direct through a direction or order and where there is a role for the Oireachtas in respect of these directions or order, it would be helpful to know, even at this early stage, what kinds of directions the Minister or Minister of State might be contemplating giving the AI office. It obviously has to comport with the goals of AI literacy. Are draft directions already being considered or made?”
“I do not think there is a fair analogy between the two things, which are financial services and AI. AI has enormous risks and potential. It almost sounds cliched to keep repeating these phrases but as Members of the Oireachtas, we are being brought on a journey in our assessment of how AI is impacting society and the thematic approach we have adopted on the committee. The general public is using AI at some of the highest levels in Europe right now and yet they have equal levels of concern and mistrust. SMEs in Ireland at OECD level apparently are doing reasonably okay. We are a bit higher and yet there is still a low level of adaptation of AI. There are whole areas of our society and country where we need to bring people on a journey. There needs to be trust and it needs to be done in a coherent way.”
“Ultimately, for Ireland to remain competitive we must examine how AI is being adapted and we must be ahead of others in how that AI adaptation is improving competitiveness. Separately, in an agile way we have to be extremely conscious of how AI is impacting young people in education at primary and secondary level and in further and higher education. We have to be agile in the impact AI is having on future jobs for graduates coming out of college, people trying to enter college and people who are not entering college at all, to know the types of jobs we are going to have in the future. We must be agile in order that we can mandate and direct policy to ensure that we can be responsive to the disruption that AI is causing and will cause and yet harness the benefits it is going to bring.”
“We are examining policies across every Department as they relate to AI. Quite clearly, any direction the Minister gives to this AI office will concern the implementation and adaptation of AI policy across a world of areas from education to health and enterprise. I acknowledge the logic of Deputy Murphy's point about the Central Bank at one point having a dual function of regulating and of promoting Ireland as a centre for financial services. After the financial crash that dual function was got rid of and the Central Bank solely had a role in respect of the regulating of financial services. However, while there is a logic to the argument, I view these issues as entirely separate. It boils down to two different philosophies present in this House and often in our committee in respect of AI.”
“My first question is what the difference is between a direction and an order and how those two elements will interplay. I also ask that as there is a statutory obligation in respect of directions, those directions would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I ask now, in contemplation of this secondary Bill the Minister of State is promoting, that she might consider an amendment to the personal data Bill she referred to in terms of the amendment of this Act, whereby the relevant committee, that is, the Oireachtas AI committee, would be the committee that would get to view and examine these directions or at least have some form of pre-legislative scrutiny function in respect of those directions. That is down to the knitting and the weeds of what we are doing in the AI committee.”
“My amendments relate to section 9(1)(c), which sets out the function of the office to “promote and foster AI innovation and literacy” and tries to provide more clarity as to what that will look like and mean. Perhaps in her reply to the Minister of State might address the two subsequent provisions of the Act, namely, sections 10 and 11. One is about the Minister’s ability to give an order to the AI office and the other is about the ability of the Minister to give a direction to the AI office. As I understand the provision, the Minister would have to lay before the Houses any direction that he or she might give and in respect of those directions, none of those can relate to the actual regulatory enforcement function. It is going back to the promoting and fostering AI innovation and literacy point.”
“I think it is a good and positive thing that we would have a statutory agency that would have both of those functions. I do not see how it dilutes investigatory and enforcement practices. There are plenty of other examples within this State where an agency has an investigatory role, a regulatory role and an advocacy role. If the Deputy reads the legislation in full, it is quite clear that the two things are very separate, and that in the performance of its regulatory functions in terms of its enforcement activity, it would be entirely independent. On the flip side, when it comes to advocacy, it is right and proper that the Government would have a role in providing some level of direction that would reflect the AI policies that are being implemented at each departmental level and that the AI office could be supported within that.”
“We need a statutory agency in this State that has a role in terms of the delivery of AI literacy across the board, at least to provide direction, just in the same way that regulatory divergence is provided in terms of all of the relevant agencies that are going to regulate the implementation of the EU AI Act. It should also be the case that we have a central agency that can at least give pointers to the Department of education, the Department of enterprise, the Minister of State's own Department and the Department of further and higher education. We need that kind of umbrella, overarching view because we know that AI, at a governmental level, will be implemented and is being implemented and adapted through every form of policy in areas like health, education and enterprise.”
“Even when we heard from members of the enterprise committee, such as Deputy Conway-Walsh, she acknowledged that the AI committee has an essential role and that we are building a level of expertise in this respect. Perhaps the next model could be this next Bill, and thereafter we might come back with a way in which this could be done. I hear what the Minister of State is saying in terms of being prescriptive about who should sit on the board. I understand the board and the Public Appointments Service, when it appoints people to the board, will ultimately reflect the overall goals of the Act. I disagree with Deputy Gibney. I fundamentally believe that the AI office should have a dual role.”
“I ask, specifically with regard to that Bill, that we create some kind of structure, although I do not know how would be created, where the Minister of State could come before the AI committee to have direct discussion of whatever form, be it informal or otherwise, if it is not done within the strictures of how Standing Orders are established. Then, after the fact, maybe through the Chair and others, we could long at a more long-term structure for the AI committee to have a more formal legislative role. I acknowledge that would require changes to Standing Orders and engagement with the relevant internal committees. Ultimately, there is probably a recognition, even if the Minister of State looks around the Chamber, that most of the Deputies in the Chamber today are members of the AI committee.”
“Am I right that at one stage, there was a proposal that that Bill would be included in the Bill now before these House, and a decision was taken to split those Bills? Is it the Minister of State's position now that, when that Bill is brought before these Houses, it may also include amendments to this Bill, based on what was said in the pre-legislative scrutiny? I see lots of nodding going on, which encourages me. In fairness to Deputy Ó Cearúil, he highlighted the deadline for establishing the AI office, which is why the Bill is before us today, to meet that deadline. The EU Presidency starts tomorrow. It gives me some encouragement about when the next Bill, albeit not the AI Bill, comes before these Houses.”
“To address what Deputy Gibney said, I do not think it is fair to say that the Minister of State is not listening. At the end of the day, the Minister of State is sitting in the Chamber and responding to the amendments that have been made. She may not agree with the amendments but she is listening. I would say that Deputy Gibney should at least acknowledge that when the Minister of State comes before our committee, she listens to us. She may have a different opinion but I do not think that is a fair charge to level against her. The Minister of State referred to another Bill which I did not catch fully. Is it the personal data Bill?”
“If the Minister of State says it should not form part of the legislation, she might be able to tell the House how that can be assured in the public appointment process that will be brought to bear for the appointments to the board.”
“What we know from this legislation is that the AI office will have a dual function. It will be a regulator but it will also act as a body that will advocate and promote the use of AI. It will regulate independently from the Minister and that is very clear in the legislation in terms of the enforcement of the EU regulations. On the flip side of that, however, it will have a role for communicating to the general public, and hopefully to small businesses, how AI can support and develop. Therefore, I want to ensure, as I think everyone in this House does, that the board of the AI office would have relevant competencies and a relevant mixture of experiences that could deal with both of those issues.”
“Those three entities will have probably the greatest interplay when it comes to the development of AI products in this jurisdiction. For those reasons, it is important that the Act would direct the composition of the board. If the Minister of State says that, for whatever reason, the type of composition of the board should not form part of the primary legislation, she might tell the House or give the House some comfort as to the types of experiences, backgrounds and professions that a person who is seeking to be a member of the board of the AI office would have to have. Ultimately, what we want to ensure in terms of a governance structure for the AI office is that it protects fundamental rights, but equally, that the board has an understanding of AI, the development of AI and an interest in the adoption of AI.”
“Put very simply, the AI office is different from Coimisiún na Meán, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which Deputy Gibney was speaking about a moment ago, in the sense that the structure of a commission and commissioners is very different from that of a board. While I acknowledge the distributive model that is being formed under the AI Act and the one we are adopting here in Ireland and that there will be other entities and regulatory bodies that will have responsibility for the areas of regulating AI, ultimately, the technology sector will treat the AI office as part of a kind of three-way sandwich between Coimisiún na Meán and the Data Protection Commissioner.”
“As the previous speaker said, if it is the case that there are to be next phases and if that is primary or secondary legislation, whatever about the Standing Orders, which I do not dismiss, relating to a permanent committee and a non-permanent committee, we are ready and able in the Oireachtas artificial intelligence committee to afford the level of scrutiny I think the committee on enterprise would actually be quite happy with, if that were delegated to us in whatever form, whether it be a formal or informal way, to allow us more of an opportunity. My amendments and similar amendments relate to the composition of the board.”
“As I said on Second Stage of this Bill, I commend the Minister of State on bringing the Bill to these Houses. There are a few things I will mention before I get to the amendments. When the Minister of State said "recommendations contained in [the pre-legislative scrutiny report] will be considered as part of the next phase", what did she mean by the next phase? Is she talking about additional primary or secondary legislation? She might clarify that point. It was also a missed opportunity that the AI committee was not afforded time to scrutinise this Bill. Furthermore, two hours for Committee Stage of this Bill is an insufficient amount of time. I acknowledge the challenges Government has to get very important legislation over the line but if there was more time available and if this debate was ongoing, that should have been afforded.”
“Right now, the European Union, with 700 million people, has agreed certain levels of norms but if the United States, China, India and other major global powers are not all in agreement as to how we are going to regulate AI moving forward, if we are at a certain level of superintelligent AI, God knows where we will be in 20 years. If we do not deal with that challenge, everyone will suffer. I hope that in our hosting of the EU Presidency, the AI summit, our enactment of the laws today and the establishment of the AI office, that we can play some role in that major global decision and that we can use the Presidency to do that.”
“I might conclude with the wider context. It is a good thing that we are introducing laws in the area of AI. It should help grow and foster trust among the public as regards what we are doing but let us be real here. There are massive fears about the impact of AI in regard to unemployment. I know SOLAS is establishing a national skills observatory under the Department of further and higher education but there are even greater global fears. They talk about superintelligent AI being a global systemic risk. Even industry is now kind of saying the same things as people were perhaps previously in industry and are critical at the pace of growth among these frontier AI companies. They are talking about a moment similar to the nuclear arms race, where the world needs to come together and agree certain levels of norms.”
“We are going to have a number of competent authorities that are going to have a regulatory function as it relates to AI within their own specialist domain and yet we are still going to have this single, overarching AI office when it comes to regulation. Surely we should have the exact same thing when it comes to advocacy, understanding and AI literacy that while it might not be the AI office delivering AI literacy schemes in schools, it could be the AI office that advises and directs the Department of education. It could be the AI office - if perhaps not meeting with small business to foster greater understanding of their adaptation of AI - playing a role in working with Enterprise Ireland to ensure that Enterprise Ireland is sufficiently tooled up to provide those necessary levels of adaptation if we are going to remain competitive.”
“Ultimately, the fears and apprehensions people have about AI are similar in industry and to people just living their daily lives. There is a great fear about what AI is going to bring and yet people, particularly in Ireland, have taken up its usage quite rapidly. In the OECD, we are even making improvements in respect of our small business adaptation, yet that fear remains and prevails. Quite clearly, this new AI office, perhaps working with Enterprise Ireland, could have a very strong role in delivering a wide literacy programme. However, AI literacy is more than just enterprise. It is in our primary and secondary schools. What role will the AI office have in respect of AI literacy everywhere? What we are doing at a regulatory level with the AI office makes sense.”
“Unlike some other speakers, I like the aspect of the Bill whereby the Minister can direct certain aspects of how the AI office would operate outside of the regulatory and enforcement level. I think we should be more specific as to what kinds of directions we are going to give the AI office. Right now, we know what the AI office is going to do. It is going to enforce the EU AI regulation and make sure that enterprises are compliant in relation to it. What we do not know is the role it will have in regard to advocacy. I would like to see the Bill reflecting an AI office that would work on AI literacy, for example, and would have a clear, stated function in the whole area of AI literacy for both enterprises and consumers.”
“I commend the Minister of State on bringing this Bill to these Houses. I want to make one point about the Oireachtas AI committee. Unfortunately, as the Minister of State knows, this was a Bill that did not go to the Oireachtas AI committee; it went to the Department of enterprise committee. This is not within the Minister of State's gift but I do not believe this is the last time in these Houses that we will be regulating or legislating in the area of artificial intelligence. I think the work we have done on the AI committee demonstrates a level of knowledge and understanding in relation to these issues. In the future, we should look at making it a permanent committee that would have the role and function of scrutinising legislation like this.”
“I compliment the Minister on the work he has done in bringing the Bill to the House and all the work underpinning that work. I look forward to its enactment. I also look forward to the benefits that signalling the enactment of this Bill will bring to this country. The more routes that come to this country, the more investment we will see. I welcome the Bill's introduction.”
“Importantly, in this Bill the assessments indicate that noise impacts are limited and manageable. Aircraft technology is continuously improving and the noise levels will continue to reduce over time. A blanket constraint on growth is neither proportionate nor sustainable. Overall, this Bill is a welcome and necessary measure. It recognises the central role that Dublin Airport plays in our economy. By providing the Government with the powers necessary to act in the national interest, it will allow Ireland to remain competitive in attracting the investment that funds social progress in this country, and it does this in a way that maintains robust environmental oversight. If we are serious about building a more prosperous Ireland for everyone, we must be serious about building the infrastructure that makes this possible. This Bill does that.”
“It provides for full environmental impact assessments, appropriate assessments under EU law, public consultation and independent scrutiny. These are robust and structured safeguards, so the notion that these changes represent a free-for-all is completely unfounded. The appropriate balance, in my view, has been struck by this Bill. The important and notable issue of noise, which Deputy Boland, as a local representative, outlined, is clearly a sensitive one in respect of Dublin Airport. Nobody can dismiss the concerns of people living near or adjacent to the airport. Equally, in order to be proportionate, using the small number of concerns people have as a justification for a veto over the growth of critical infrastructure cannot be countenanced.”
“I accept fully that this Bill involves difficult choices. It removes some planning powers from the local authority and moves them towards the centre, but that choice is justified in this instance. The airport's growth is an issue of national importance and requires considerations beyond that level. Environmental concerns have also been raised. It is clear that the Bill takes those concerns seriously. Too often, environmental-type arguments are used as a blocking tactic by those who fundamentally do not want to see Ireland grow, develop or attract investment. Again, that is not a progressive position to take and it is certainly not in the national interest. The Bill does not disregard environmental concerns.”
“Ultimately, the airport is the critical node underpinning the trade, tourism and investment that are the foundations of Ireland's economic success. Given that reality, it is entirely appropriate that the Minister for Transport have the power to amend or remove a constraint that is choking the airport's and the country's potential. There is nothing progressive about supporting a measure that constrains Dublin Airport's growth. Independent research shows that over 100,000 jobs are linked to the airport and that it contributes €9.6 billion in gross value added to the Irish economy. These figures show that the benefits of allowing the airport to grow are not abstract. It will create more jobs and investment in Ireland. That is what allows us to build more housing, improve public services and invest in transport, healthcare and education.”
“For too long, Dublin Airport, which is the gateway to this country for investors and tourists, has been constrained by a planning condition that no longer reflects the reality we face in today's world. Passenger demand has already exceeded the cap for consecutive years, but this outdated restriction has been used to undermine our broader economic objective and limit our national potential. In my view, the Bill addresses this problem. At its core, this legislation changes something very simple. It changes who should decide the future of a piece of infrastructure that is of national importance. Dublin Airport is not a local facility; it is the gateway to Ireland for tourists, investors and people bringing jobs to this country. It is a gateway to Europe and the world for our people, students and exporters.”
“Now the Bill is before the House. I am not criticising the Minister. I am talking about the past when the Bill was not brought to the Houses, and how long it has taken for a Government, that is, this one rather than the previous one, to legislate to address this issue. I compliment the Minister on bringing the Bill to the House and bringing us to this position. As a small, open economy, we face intense competition for the foreign direct investment that has been the bedrock of our prosperity. We do not compete for this investment for the sake of it. Investment and growth are required to fund better public services, the construction of housing and a more just society.”
“This is serious legislation. The complexity involved in it is there for all to see. By virtue of the Minister's opening address and on any examination of the Bill, we can see just how complex this law has been in bringing it to the floor of the House. Understandably, there has been a lot of frustration among the sector owing to the delays in bringing a Bill like this to the House.”