Louise O'Reilly
Dublin Fingal West · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I welcome this debate this afternoon and am happy to be able to make a small contribution to it. I grew up in a Border town. I ended up in that town because my father was a trade union organiser who represented workers on both sides of the Border for a long number of years and, in fact, went on to be based in the North for a long time.”
“I am fortunate enough to represent a constituency that is very firmly in the Dublin–Belfast economic corridor. Before partition, as we know, Belfast was a thriving industrial powerhouse. Partition put a lid on the potential of that city to grow and flourish.”
“When we talk about Irish unity, we should frame that discussion as one about potential for growth, the potential for all-Ireland working and all-Ireland business. Between Belfast and Dublin, there are five universities, numerous colleges of further education and training, and businesses that are ready to scale up.”
“As the debate on Irish unity advances, and it is advancing despite what some of the people opposite would like to happen, we need to frame that discussion in a positive way. We need to look clearly for those opportunities while acknowledging the challenges. We are not blind to the challenges.”
“If her letter does not have any impact - let us be honest; it has not had any impact - the Minister of State might outline what he will do that might go a bit further than writing a letter. We know that devices are essential. We know that parents want their kids to be able to participate.”
“I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this motion. I was chatting to my dad as I was coming in and told him I would be debating this motion in relation to supports for parents this morning. He reminded me, of course, that it was the Labour Party in government that cut those very supports.”
The complete record
Every one of 855 lines we hold for Louise O'Reilly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 18.
“Men are key players in ensuring women are safe - safe in their houses, on the streets, on public transport and in their workplaces, whether they work in a factory, an office, a hairdressers or indeed here in the Dáil or the Seanad. Men need to step up for the women they work with and alongside.”
“When I say we should not normalise domestic abuse, I mean we have to go above and beyond and recognise that individual circumstances must be taken into consideration. For that reason, I urge the Minister to consider the case and to do what he can in his office as Minister for justice to put some substance to the words we all say here, and his Government colleagues say them as well, about not normalising domestic abuse. For that reason, victims and survivors, and victims of the housing crisis as well of course, cannot be treated in isolation from their circumstances. I agree with the previous speaker about the role of men. Men must call out violence against women.”
“In 2010, she joined the Dublin City Council housing list. She was eligible then, as she is today, for social housing. In 2015, she was viciously assaulted by her partner. He was sent to prison for a very long time but is now out. She went to live in north County Dublin where she felt safe and could raise her children in peace, and she remained on the Dublin City Council housing list. She is now in the range of being offered a house she has waited 15 years. She will get an offer but she cannot move back. She has a letter from An Garda Síochána stating for her own safety she should not move back to Dublin city. She is living in precarious private rented accommodation in north County Dublin. She is being treated as if this is a normal, average, run of the mill housing case, which it is not.”
“I pay tribute to Women's Aid on its 50th anniversary. I wish to read out the number for anyone that needs it: 1800 341900. We obviously wish there was no need for Women's Aid but there is, and its work is getting harder and more complex. Some of the earlier speakers mentioned the normalising of domestic abuse, and we cannot allow that to happen. We have to speak clearly and with one voice and be unequivocal in saying domestic abuse and sexual and gender-based violence is not normal and should not be treated as such. I raise a case I have raised many times and for the avoidance of any doubt, I will continue to raise until there is a resolution. I wish to speak to the Minister about a woman I will call Janet. That is not her name but he will understand why I use it when I tell her story.”
“The library has never been more important in our towns, cities and villages. Will the Minister consider doing that survey to see where there might be a need for additional resources or additional capacity?”
“I was contacted recently by a student living in Balbriggan. He told me that he is there every morning 20 minutes before the library opens because there is a massive queue of people. That is a ringing endorsement of the work done by the people working in Balbriggan library and indeed all our libraries - I understand we in north County Dublin are not unique in that respect. Will the Minister give consideration to conducting a small survey, with reference to the previous point made, about utilising any existing capacity that might be within a town to expand that space? It is a really positive and good thing that people are actively trying to get into the library but it is unfortunate that sometimes they are turned away. We are in the middle of a housing crisis and many people live in very overcrowded accommodation.”
“They are the beating heart of our communities and are, very often, a very handy place for parents to get to and from. I ask that the Minister would keep community childcare to the forefront when he is discussing and considering community centres and investment.”
“I want to take this opportunity, when we are discussing community centres, to make a request. This was a question I had in and it was moved to another Department but I am going to try and wedge it in here anyway. It concerns community childcare. When we are talking about community centres, we need to be looking at harnessing those buildings. We had a discussion on Storm Éowyn and the way in which it exposed some of the fragile infrastructure. Now that there is a lens on it and people are looking at that vital infrastructure, the Minister might consider and have community childcare and crèches as part of community centre redevelopment where it is happening. They are located, as Deputy McGreehan has pointed out, at the centre of our communities.”
“On this day last week we were here with the Minister of State's colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, and we discussed how the State can be a really important driver. This adds an additional measurement in order that it will be very focused and ensure there is delivery at local level.”
“I do not wish to be argumentative but there is a small difference between what I am saying and what the Minister of State is saying. As much as the community wealth building model is driven by those deliverables, we are looking at measuring improvement in regard to the number of children living in poverty and increasing the percentage of the working-age population in employment, and not only in employment but in employment in decent work. It is about measuring as well as local development and investment and channelling money in a focused way. I encourage the Minister of State to look at Ayrshire and Preston in particular. Preston has been completely transformed by this and the drivers measured the impact on wages, poverty and job satisfaction, etc., for the local community.”
“We must take that and channel it towards deliverables such as reduction in poverty, well-paying jobs for local people and additional local businesses, including those owned by co-operatives. It is not only what the Government is doing but adding an extra layer on top of that and measuring it. If we look at places such as Preston and Ayrshire, we can see genuine transformation happening at local level.”
“I really welcome that. As I said, this is long-standing Sinn Féin policy but it also makes a lot of sense. I appreciate that the Minister of State outlined what has been done, but the difference between what he has said and community wealth building revolves around key performance indicators, KPIs, to use that jargon. A community wealth building fund is shown to have been successful where there are deliverables and it is measurable, meaning we can look at reductions in poverty and inequality in a given local area. The purpose of it is to take the money being spent and use it to drive not just the local economy but also the local community. The State is a big player as regards spending power at local, national and international level.”
“This question is fairly straightforward and simple, as I would like to think all my questions are. Has the Minister of State given consideration to establishing a community wealth building fund within his Department? He will know it is very long-standing Sinn Féin policy to support the development of community wealth building. We were in here the other night debating a Bill on ethical procurement and a representative of the Government stated that the Government is not hostile to the idea. This question is generally in that vein.”
“There have to be consequences for the genocidal action of the brutal Israeli regime. It must feel those consequences. The Tánaiste has the support of all the people on this island to take action against Israel to ensure that it does feel those consequences. While I am on my feet and have the floor, I implore him to do all that he can to get the kids here to play GAA. I spoke to one of the families that are expecting a child to come and stay with them. Their kids are devastated but, more importantly, the children in Gaza need to get out for a couple of days to play the sport that they love and to be somewhere peaceful and quiet for a couple of days. I urge the Tánaiste to do everything in his power to facilitate these children coming to Ireland. They just want to play Gaelic games with young Irish people. That is all they want to do.”
“It is felt by the people in the Gallery and the people outside. Just because the Minister does not feel it or see it does not mean that it is not real. I invite the Minister to address his remarks to the people in the Gallery.”
“It was not structural and now even that short-term relief has been taken away at a time when rents are soaring, groceries are hitting new highs and thousands of students are still waiting for basic SUSI grant reform. The Minister says to students that the €1,000 reduction was a cost-of-living measure. I invite the Minister, when he makes his remarks, to look up at the students in the Public Gallery and ask them if their or their parents' cost-of-living crisis is over. He should ask these young people and their families if they can wait for months on end to find out what fees they will be paying next semester. They cannot wait. People are on low incomes. The working poor are a growing number under this Government. They cannot wait while the Government dithers. It is unfair. The cost-of-living crisis is very real.”
“For many students, this €1,000 hike is not just a number on a page. It is the difference between accepting a college place and not; between staying in education and dropping out; between progress and paralysis. It is not about affordability alone. It is also about credibility and trust and the repeated failure of the Government to live up its own words. The 2020 and 2025 programmes for Government made clear promises to reduce fees, reform SUSI and invest properly in third level education. Fine Gael's own manifesto pledged to phase out fees entirely but instead of progress, we have now witnessed what looks like a complete roll back and a roll over on top of students. Instead of consultation there has been silence. The €1,000 reduction introduced in budget 2023 was presented as a meaningful step forward but it was temporary.”
“I understand the Minister does not think that is going to happen but it is our job to make sure that it does not happen. It is a case of wanting to be sure to be sure – belt and braces - as the Minister said himself.”
“I fully respect the intention here but again, I am concerned about the words the Minister used, that is, "evidence to the contrary". I accept what the Minister said in the case of a couple but I am asking about a situation where a neighbour is involved. Does the Minister see where I am going with this?”
“Could I get clarity on what the Minister said? He said that it will be accepted that a couple are living together, which is welcome, but then he said "unless there is evidence to the contrary". That then brings in the test. I am happy to be corrected if I misheard him. It is fine and appropriate if the Department is going to accept their word but what the Minister just said is slightly different to what was said in the committee, namely, "unless there is evidence to the contrary". Could he explain to us what that would mean and how that evidence would present itself or how it would then be tested?”
“I move amendment No. 7: In page 8, to delete lines 4 to 8. To be fair, this definition is really only relevant as a test of whether the couple was living together in an intimate relationship. It is related and consequential to the other amendments, and those ones which were, unfortunately, ruled out of order. I look forward to hearing the Minister's rationale on this. Given that it is related to the other amendments, I am happy to discuss it and hear from the Minister.”
“We have highlighted to the Minister what we believe - I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - to be the unintended consequences of this for children. The judgment related to children and the judge did refer specifically to children. My concern is that a category of child will be created that will be excluded. That is not a good thing. I will certainly forward cases to him for examination in which I believe people will be treated unfairly as a result of this. I would appreciate his answer in relation to the woman who was bereaved when she was six months pregnant.”
“The Minister referred to universal payments, which are available to everybody. I am not sure they cover what we are looking for. He said he will review the impact of the changes. He has given that commitment in this House. Will he also commit to publishing that review? From my perspective, I will submit a case. There are cases that exist. We will submit cases that will be excluded from this and excluded unfairly. It is our intention to forward those cases to the Minister for examination. I spoke to one woman who was six months pregnant when she was bereaved. I am glad that the Minister has an answer for me on that because she is concerned that she might potentially be excluded in some way, shape or form.”
“This represents a levelling down. The Bill creates a category of children and a category of family who will be excluded and treated less favourably. Before the Minister presses ahead with this, it is right to support the amendment and take this opportunity to review the financial implications and the potential for hardship for a very small number of people. I want to really stress there are no floodgates about to be opened. We are talking about small numbers but, nonetheless, for every single one of them this is a very important amendment.”
“We are standing here telling the Minister there are people and children, not in large numbers, who will potentially be discriminated against. The Minister is creating another class of child, which flies in the face of the judgment. I encourage the Minister to support the amendment and do this work before the Bill is enacted. The intention here is to right a wrong but the Minister will not right that wrong by creating another category, layer and group of children who are excluded. I know, not from my own personal experience – touch wood – but from experience in my very close family, how important this money is to people at a time in their lives when there are expenses such as funerals and kids to be cared for. It is very tough time and the money is very much needed. It is also a recognition of the children, and this is worth saying.”
“This is very regrettable. The Bill has come before us in order to rectify legislation that treated the children of cohabiting parents less favourably than the children of married parents. That was declared unconstitutional, and rightly so, but it is hard to see any justification for the introduction of legislation that treats the children of separated or divorced parents less favourably than children whose parents are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting. The amendment being proposed is very sensible. It is simply about the compilation of data and the examination of the potential financial implications. I genuinely do not believe it is the Minister's intention to exclude these people but it is hard to come to any other conclusion.”
“I am on the record as having welcomed this legislation. I understand its intention and to respond to the judgment was very necessary. It is important, however, when we have the opportunity, that we make the legislation as good and decent as it can be and ensure that it reflects the judgment. We must remember the Chief Justice placed an emphasis on the rights of all children and the obligations of their parents, irrespective of the status of their parents. We are not talking about large numbers. There are no floodgates, as FLAC has pointed out. As Deputy Coppinger said, and rightly so, FLAC took the case. It has been immersed in this. FLAC, One Family and Treoir all ask the same thing, which is, if possible at this late stage, will the Minister try to include all children. Most of our amendments have been ruled out of order.”
“When profit motive is introduced into the care of vulnerable people, this is the inevitable consequence. Privatisation is Government policy; it needs to be reversed.”
“Her dad was only allowed to have one visit, but he got that one visit every single day. Hard and all as it was for her to live it, it was hard to hear about it as well. I thought afterwards about the people who did not have anybody to speak up for them. She was in every day to see her dad and she could still see he was being mistreated. What about the people who do not have anyone to speak up for them? That is why HIQA is supposed to be there. That is why we need the adult safeguarding legislation. We need the Government to stop talking about it because talking about it is interfering with the Government actually doing something about it. We really need to see that legislation, not just a "strong commitment". We need to have a conversation about privatisation.”
“In 2011, I had occasion to be in that nursing home when it was eventually shut down. If I live to be 1,000 years old, I will never forget what I saw and heard from the people working there. The way in which the residents were treated shocked me to my very core. I did not think it was possible that people could be treated in that manner. It was very shocking. The workers were treated every bit as badly as the patients and residents in the nursing home. Two weeks ago, I sat in my constituency office for well over an hour with a woman whose dad had been a resident in the Beneavin Manor nursing home. She detailed to me the litany of complaints she had made on behalf of her father. She had brought them to the attention of HIQA, the owner and the upper people in the nursing home. It was during Covid.”
“On one occasion, bed sores on an elderly incontinent patient were found to have been contaminated by faecal matter. Before prosecutions even took place, the health board went to the High Court to try to have the home shut down. There was evidence that staffing, training and drug administration rules had all been breached. One nurse had been rostered for 72 hours in one week. No fire drills were carried out, despite residents smoking in their rooms. The owners at the time, the Lipsetts, argued that they had resolved the problems. There were no powers to shut the home down at that stage. The owner was struck off the nursing register because she failed to act on sexual abuse allegations. That happened between 2004 and 2005. Micheál Martin was the Minister for Health and Children for part of that time.”
“When I think of HIQA, I am often reminded of an article about the British royal family that stated that they believed that everything outside of Buckingham Palace smelled like fresh paint. HIQA is probably the same. Announced inspections are not working and give people far too much time. There have to be unannounced inspections. HIQA needs to be better resourced. None of us wants our loved ones to be treated in such a manner. That is a given and we do not need to see it. However, HIQA is sometimes all that stands between a vulnerable person and mistreatment. The Government - I was about to say "we", but I am taking no responsibility for this - should give HIQA the powers it needs. In 2004, the Rostrevor nursing home was investigated by the health board.”
“I can tell the Minister of State now that her health needs are such that emergency accommodation would not be appropriate for her. She is not eligible to go onto the social housing list because she currently owns a home. The point I am making is that there are lived realities for people. This is the scheme of last resort, and this is her last resort. The first thing she did was not to pick up the phone to me. She has tried everything. It is not the case that she has just simply picked up the phone. She has been trying to fight this herself but it is really hard. I will send the details to the Minister's office but I also ask that the Minister of State would raise with the Minister for Social Protection the need for not just flexibility but responsiveness to the lived reality of people.”
“I appreciate that the Minister of State is here. She listed the qualities of the scheme, including flexibility and so forth. However, here is the thing: ESB Networks considers Diane to be a vulnerable customer. It has put her in the category of a person who should not have her electricity cut off because she is a vulnerable customer and person, not due to any wrongdoing on her part. It is because she is sick. She has not done anything wrong. Some 16,000 people are homeless. She does not want to have to join them. However, it seems that the scheme is not fit for purpose if it is not able to encompass people who have a need of that nature. If it is the case that she cannot pay her mortgage, we both know what the consequences will be. The State will have to examine emergency accommodation.”
“This example is somewhat of an outlier, but it illustrates the fact that the supplementary welfare allowance is not adequate for the demands being made on it at the moment. It has not kept pace with what is happening currently and it is not fit for purpose in the housing crisis we are in at the moment.”
“The Minister of State and I both know what the result of the appeal will be. I understand she will tell me she cannot pre-empt it and I do not want to either, but I have a feeling the appeal will go the same way as the application because the grounds on which it was refused still stand. This is the scheme of last resort, if you will. This is where people go when they have been everywhere else. There are currently 26,000 people in mortgage arrears. Some of them have a mortgage that has been sold to a vulture fund, others do not. Illnesses and personal circumstances are a really big push factor in people going into long-term arrears. Everyone deserves to stay in their home.”
“She has to have equipment fitted in her house and now she is in danger of losing the house. I used this as an example because we are in the middle of a housing crisis. If this were 25 years ago, the Minister of State might say it is tough, but she will have to rent and there is support available for that and so on. However, the truth is that there is nowhere for her to rent. She is too sick to go into emergency accommodation. I do not know whether the Minister of State has seen it. This is with no disrespect to the people who work in it, because I am sure they are doing their best, but you would not want to be in it in the whole of your health, never mind gravely ill. I have engaged with the Department of Social Protection on her behalf. The response I got is that she can appeal the decision.”
“She was struggling to repay her mortgage. A payment plan of €597 per month was agreed. She was in receipt of the other supplement, the former mortgage interest supplement, which meant she was able to keep a roof over her head. Diane has been under a lot of financial pressure on top of the fact that she is very unwell. One thing is feeding the other. The financial pressure is feeding the ill health, etc. On 17 June 2025 she received a letter from the Department of Social Protection telling her she is to be excluded from receipt of the supplement because the arrears outstanding on the loan are of such magnitude that the payment of a supplement is considered inappropriate. This puts her in a very precarious and scary place, as I am sure the Minister of State will agree. The woman is gravely ill.”
“I thank the Minister of State for being here to take this Topical Issue matter. I will use an individual case, but I will not say the woman's full name. I am raising the case on behalf of a person to highlight the issue I have, which is about the limitations of the supplementary welfare allowance and the manner in which it is applied. It often seems that a decision is made by the Department of Social Protection that a scheme will be put in place to respond to a need, but the scheme is then not changed and not adapted. I will illustrate my point with an example. I am raising this issue on behalf of a woman by the name of Diane. She has survived cancer twice and during that time the mortgage on her apartment was, unbeknownst to her - let us be fair; she had a lot going on - sold to a well known vulture fund.”
“It is not what the task force recommended and it is not what people want. We want an end to State-supported dereliction of our capital city. My colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, has put forward a plan to create a 1916 cultural quarter. The Government should scrap its amendment and engage with us on our plans for a vibrant city centre. If the Government presses ahead with its plan, this disgraceful proposal will be resisted and met with strong resistance from people who are proud of our history and ashamed of what the Government is proposing. It might be okay for the Government to stick a Starbucks, McDonald's or something like that in the area, and the Minister of State can shake his head, but the Government is leaving the door open to do exactly that. The Government should shut that down. Deputy McAuliffe will get his chance to speak.”
“It is not because when the mask slips with the Government, it slips all the way down to its ankles and we see exactly what it is that it has planned. The breathtaking ignorance of our history on display from the Government is shameful. I would have thought the Government might have learned something after its plans to celebrate the Black and Tans, but it turns out that lessons learned is something the Government says but which does not have any meaning, as we see from its latest stunt which is more of the same, namely ignorant revisionism from a Government that seems almost ashamed of Dublin's revolutionary past. I am proud of our capital city, proud to be a Dub and proud of the 1916 rebels. How the Government treats the GPO is a measure of its respect for our history. Commercialisation of the GPO will not be tolerated.”
“It is fair to say that on the watch of this Government O'Connell Street and the surrounding area have definitely been neglected. I am sick and tired of Government representatives giving out about Dublin city, running the capital down and hiding their jewellery when they walk down Talbot Street. We see them. The answer to how the Government treats O'Connell Street and the surrounding area is investment and respect. That is what we should see from the Government. It has run down the capital city for too long. Our revolutionary history is important to us in Sinn Féin, the people who have joined us in the Gallery and the people watching this debate. If it is not important to the Government, then shame on it. Does the Minister of State think it is acceptable to roll his eyes, shake his head and smirk?”
“Perhaps, some of the reason it does not is it is not aware to the extent to which this is going on. The collection of data would be useful in that regard but it equally would provide the State with valuable information to harness the power. It is €22 billion - that is not nothing - which is a lot of power that could be directed in a positive way. That is simply what an Teachta Farrell is seeking to do with this legislation. I urge the Minister of State to consider withdrawing her amendment and working with the Opposition on what is essentially decent and worthwhile legislation.”
“However, equally it is using its money to fund organisations that are essentially disrespecting another arm of the State because Labour Court recommendations are being ignored. In some instances, we have established rates of pay in industries and those too are being ignored. It does not any sense to put this off for 24 months because that time could be used by us in committee and in the Chamber to debate and tease out those complex legal issues. No legislation is ever without its consequences. We cannot simply snap our fingers and either change the law or bring in a new law that is not going to have consequences. That is the purpose of committees and debate. We were elected here to have those discussions. As it stands, the State does not use its massive spending power as a driver for decent terms and conditions for workers.”
“It does not make any sense for the State to have, as the Minister of State and other Members have said, sophisticated industrial relations machinery. We have said it many times, and it does exist. The Government is on a hiding to nothing if it gets a Labour Court recommendation that an employer simply will not fulfil. That employer knows, whether they fulfil the Labour Court recommendation or not, it can still get another lucrative Government contract. If this data is collected and analysed properly, the State will realise it is not acting in the interest of workers. It is not using its massive spending power in the market as a driver for decent terms and conditions and for workers' rights.”
“The women who were cleaning said to me that this is the Government, and the Government is paying for their jobs essentially. The Labour Court is an arm of the government, yet we have a situation whereby there is absolutely no onus on it to respect workers' rights. The State is a massive player. Deputy Farrell's Bill seeks to ensure that the State has information to act ethically. It is literally giving the State and the Government the benefit of the doubt on the basis that perhaps some of the stuff that goes on happens because people are not aware it is going on in a systematic way. Effectively, Deputy Farrell's legislation gives the Government the data and information that it can use to then act in the interests of workers and, indeed, in upholding workers' rights.”
“These companies know that when the Government is spending the €22 billion, and they are getting some of it, there is a continuous pipeline that they are going to be able to tap into again and again. It does not matter if there are outstanding Labour Court judgments against them. Deputy Nash will recall that I was on the picket line with Patricia King outside a major Department where the cleaners were being treated appallingly, but the Government was funding that company. The Government recognises trade unions but this company would not recognise the union. Not only would they not recognise the union, but they would not pay the appropriate rate. When the workers went on strike, the company threatened to lock them out and sack them.”
“I have said in the Labour Court and in other forums that the irony of this is high-paid civil and public servants, who are union members and have benefited from trade union membership, are working on these contracts. There are employers who will not implement Labour Court recommendations. A Labour Court recommendation is made and employers will not implement it because they do not have to. One arm of the State is providing the contract and giving big money to this company and another arm of the State is saying that they need to come halfway to do something decent for their workers. However, there is no compulsion on them to do so. While this is happening, the data is not being collated. If the Government has no data or information, then it cannot be the driver for decent terms and conditions for workers.”
“All they have to do is write back and say, "We're paying the minimum wage." That is really the only legally enforceable right a worker has. The State could use its money to drive decent pay and conditions or it can take a hands-off approach, which is frequently what happens. I have been in the Labour Court with employers who have judgments and decisions against them and know there is no way they can be compelled. I know from the data, and it perhaps can be seen in newspapers as well, that companies with a really bad record on human rights know they can ramble back into another Government contract without there being any comeback at all.”
“We used to say repeatedly to Government that the State should be careful to spend its money where workers' rights are protected. We in the trade union movement recognised the State is not just a big spender, but can be a driver of employment policy and a driver of and positive agent for workers' rights. Unfortunately, in the rush to privatise essential public services, using, as we knew it would, the vehicle of the Office of Government Procurement at times, taxpayers' money is spent in areas where workers' rights are not only not being protected but are being absolutely ripped up. There are companies in receipt of massive State contracts that think it is okay not to recognise trade unions. All they have to do is the minimum.”