Nessa Cosgrove
Labour Panel · Labour Party · Ireland
“The Minister of State recognised that there was a grassroots movement and the documentary "Groundswell" captured it. There is also the documentary "Gasland", which was made in America and came out in 2010. We know it is going to come from America. Again, this is the Trojan horse.”
“The amendment defines "fracked gas", which does not appear anywhere in the Bill. This, with amendment No. 13, would make clear that the importation of fracked gas would not be possible under the Bill. LNG particularly when sourced in the US, is usually derived from fracking.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 8, after line 39, to insert the following: " "hydraulically fractured gas" means liquefied natural gas, or natural gas in any other form, that has been produced, in whole or in part, by means of hydraulic fracturing within the meaning of section 5A of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960;".…”
“I am sorry but I just do not buy the argument that it is security. A floating LNG storage facility in Qatar was blown up. It is actually more of a risk to our security to have a floating LNG terminal. This whole thing is mad.”
“All of us were probably at the IFA briefing yesterday. When they gave us the briefing document I saw that it was exactly the same as the one last year and I wondered whether it had got anything it looked for. I was told not really, apart perhaps with regard to areas of natural constraint.”
“Historians, no doubt, are going to refer to this legislation in that way, because the reserve is not going to be used solely for emergencies. We are trying to define what an emergency is. There is no definition. Seven years ago, we led the way in the international community by committing to phase out oil and gas exploration.”
The complete record
Every one of 951 lines we hold for Nessa Cosgrove, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 20.
“Reporting in the UK shows many women waiting hundreds of days for disclosures to be made. For women in dangerous situations, this is obviously too late. They also typically require direct contact with police to initiate the process. Sometimes that can pose a barrier for vulnerable women, particularly those from marginalised communities. The efficacy of those processes under domestic violence disclose schemes has been questioned. With that in mind, I understand and commend the Minister for choosing a different approach here. There are, however, also questions about the idea of a public register and I would like reassurance from the Minister that these have been accounted for. The information to be included on the register is, by definition, limited in nature, only relating to a serious conviction.”
“It put in place a domestic violence disclosure scheme allowing police to both disclose and proactively inform people of their partners' relevant past convictions. The new register of domestic violence under this Bill, which we welcome, is different from the one in the UK. It is vital that we tease this out to make sure what the Government is doing here is the best way forward. There are concerns with both models. Given what the Government is proposing here is reasonably novel, we need to make sure we get it right. I am delighted we have this opportunity to speak about this. Domestic violence disclosure schemes, like Clare's Law, have a couple of significant drawbacks. They rely on the police providing the information, and that carries the possibles of delays.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I pause to remember Jennifer Poole and Valerie French. I welcome Joe, Jason and David to the House and thank them for all of the important work they have done. I also thank Fianna Fáil Senators and TDs for bringing forward this important legislation. The Labour Party is very happy to support it. The idea at the heart of the Bill is a simple one. People should have a chance to find out if their partner has a history of domestic violence. We can all agree that this is a very worthy and sensible aim. How do we do that in the most effective, safe and possible way? There have been different approaches to this in different jurisdictions and I want to talk about Clare's Law in the UK.”
“What I am asking is that the Minister commits to giving additional funding, across all the county councils, so at least roads which were promised to be built this year can actually be completed this year, and we are not always on the back foot for the next couple of years. I would appreciate it if the Acting Leader could bring that back to the Department.”
“I again raise the issue of funding for local government. This month's meeting of Sligo County Council heard that due to the war in the Middle East, the costs of road-building materials have increased by 25% to 30%. We all see the impact of it through the rising fuel costs, but often we do not think about the effect of the rising cost of by-products, such as petroleum tar, on local government. My former colleagues in Sligo County Council were told by the director of services that because the price of material costs has gone up so much, unfortunately, the roads which were due to be delivered in 2026 are going to be pushed out to 2027. That is going to keep going on now.”
“Ba ag cabhrú le hUisce Éireann, comhairlí contae agus comharchumainn áitiúla a bheadh an t-údarás mar sin. Cuirfidh mé na moltaí seo chun cinn ag an gcéad Chéim eile agus tá súil agam go nglacfaidh an tAire leo.”
“Fáiltím roimh an obair atá déanta ag an Aire ó ceapadh ina Aire é. Labhróidh mé faoi bhealach amháin a gcuirfeadh feabhas ar chearta daoine a rugadh agus a tógadh sa Ghaeltacht. Tá sé tábhachtach do phobal agus todhchaí na Gaeltachta go mbeidh ról níos lárnaí ag Údarás na Gaeltachta i soláthar tithíochta sa Ghaeltacht do chainteoirí Gaeilge. Sa Bhille, beidh cead ag an údarás talamh a dhíol. Ba chóir go mbeadh cead ag an údarás talamh a cheannach chomh maith ar mhaithe le tithe a chur ar fáil. Tá 400 acra talún ag an údarás a bheadh foisteanach anois, dar leis féin. Tá saineolas agus scileanna in Údarás na Gaeltachta chun tograí agus scéimeanna mar seo a éascú. Bheadh rannóg thithíochta san údarás in ann cabhrú le muintir na Gaeltachta agus cur leis na deiseanna chun maireachtáil sa Ghaeltacht ar bhonn lárnach.”
“Dáil Éireann passed the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, changed from the Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, on 10 June 2026, to which the agreement of Seanad Éireann is desired.”
“Slovenia, Spain and France have all brought forward restrictions or embargoes and it is long past time that we played our part. For a long time, Labour has called for a complete ban on the use of Irish airspace and airports for the transport of weapons of war. This is a principled position that we root in our commitment to peace, neutrality and international law. This is why we are very proud to support this Bill and I urge colleagues across the House to do the same. This is a very tangible step that we can and should do. The Minister of State is a Gaeilgeoir. We as a country experienced genocide ourselves. Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine. We know that we are living in each other's shadows in this world. There is only one world and this is something that we can do.”
“These customs flights would be required to abide by human rights law and seek exemptions before landing in Shannon. According to data gathered by ICE flight monitors, five ICE flights using leased US civilian aircraft passed through Shannon conducting removal operations between May 2025 and February 2026. These ICE flights included third-country removals where individuals are forcibly taken to countries to which they have no connection. Imagine any of us being pushed into that situation. We can no longer be complicit in these flights or the military flights that are undermining our neutrality and adding fuel to the fire of the illegal wars in the Middle East. We have lagged behind other European countries on tackling the arms supply to Israel.”
“The passage of weapons through Ireland to Israel is the clearest illustration of the utter failure of the Government to match rhetoric with any meaningful action. It is a cut-and-dried case of Irish complicity in Israeli crimes. This is shameful and demands action. I thank Senator Stephenson and the civil society groups she has worked with for bringing this Bill forward. It is not overly complicated. By introducing a proper, enforceable, random inspection regime, it would make it crystal clear that Ireland would no longer stand idly by while military and weapons flights flout our rules and undermine our neutrality. Crucially, it would also take action on the shameful use of Shannon for ICE deportation flights, which have been outlined here by Senators Stephenson and Andrews. We have seen the reports of this recently.”
“This Government has utterly failed to deliver on the clear call from the Irish people to take real action and to stand with the people of Palestine against the brutal onslaught they have been subjected to. Ministers will point out that ultimately symbolic actions like the recognition of the State of Palestine, which I commend, will show that they are listening to the clear calls from the Irish people. However, time after time, when it comes to taking a really firm stand, the Government shirks that responsibility. Think of all the abject failures we have seen already this week. There was the failure to include services in the occupied territories Bill and a failure to take any action towards a boycott of the Ireland-Israel football match. This is something we can do.”
“That is true at the best of times, but when those flights are in active support of a brutal and genocidal war in the Middle East, it becomes a deep moral failure on the part of our State. According to data collected by the military plane tracker Shannonwatch, at least 1,300 U.S. military and military-contracted civilian aircraft flew within 37 miles of Shannon Airport between January 2024 and March 2026, including at least 45 flights that travelled to or from Israel. We know that in October the Government granted an exemption for an Omni Air International flight chartered by the US military to carry arms to the Israeli military. It was the first time in almost 20 years that a Government had openly acknowledged authorising the transfer of weapons through Shannon to Israel. This came two years into a genocide.”
“For years we have come into this Chamber and debated again and again the systematic undermining of our neutrality by US military flights over our airspace or landing in our airports. The Government response again and again has been a stubborn refusal to even recognise the problem, let alone address it. Week on week, we see new reporting that the scale and scope of these military flights is rising. Again, the Government's response is to close its ears, as it were, and pretend there is no problem. No matter the circumstances, the refusal to implement a proper inspection regime or to take action on unsanctioned weapons flights is a betrayal. No matter what way it is dressed up, it is a betrayal of Irish neutrality.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I thank Senator Stephenson for raising this and I am proud to be a member of our Cross-Party Group. We are using our Private Members' time for this vital Bill. I also give credit to the Civil Engagement Group and Senators Higgins and Black, who have done a lot of work in this area and have brought forward similar legislation. The Bill will introduce a random inspection and enforcement regime for state flights through Irish airspace and landing in Irish airports. Contrary to what Senator Craughwell said, the OPLA has deemed it legally sound. It is deeply disappointing that the Government is indicating it will not support the Bill. I wish I could say I was surprised but I am not.”
“It is disappointing; we thought this would be a very reasonable amendment. People do make mistakes in their jobs but this is a guardrail. It is not excessive in any way. There should not be room for error when you are talking about biometric data.”
“This amendment aims to make absolutely clear on the face of this Bill that checking a person's image against a broad database of images is prohibited under this legislation.”
“We do not want to see a situation where new technologies, which are emerging all the time, are adopted in a way that is inconsistent with the narrow uses proposed in this Bill. Specifically, this Bill allows for a relatively narrow use of biometric technology in policing by comparing biometric data, for example, faces, across pieces of evidence like photographs or footage that the Garda has already gathered in the course of an investigation. The Minister has made clear that he sees a wider future for biometric technology in policing. Facial recognition technology that compares against a wide database of biometric data is something we in the Labour Party will not accept.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 8, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(ab) contravenes section 43C(1);”. This amendment would make it an offence without lawful authority or reasonable excuse to knowingly contravene section 43C(1) which states, "A member of Garda personnel shall not carry out biometric analysis other than in accordance with this Part and any applicable code of practice." The Bill already criminalises falsifying, concealing or destroying information obtained by biometric analysis. It does not, however, state that a contravention of the Bill is an offence. The reason this is important is we do not want to see any potential for scope to creep in here.”
“The Minister of State speaks about climate measures when we are not adhering to the Paris Agreement and are very happy to actually be charged fines for not reducing climate emissions so I do not think his comment holds up at all. That is what this is looking for. It is just looking for extra scrutiny - inter-ministerial scrutiny - and I do not think it is unreasonable to put those safeguards on it. Using our climate is definitely not the best argument because this Government in particular is doing nothing for it and is actually happy to have fines rather than meet our climate targets.”
“The powers being given to the Minister under this subsection are unjustifiable and we completely oppose it. We hope this amendment will put some democratic guardrails on the process and at least ensure that the elected Houses of the Oireachtas have a chance to discuss and debate this before we are signed up to the new investor court. That is the least we can do as politicians. I do not think it is a big ask. This would ensure that the Minister needs to examine closely the impacts of such a change. The Minister of State said earlier that it is too late but I do not think it is. This amendment would be the bare minimum and I hope he can accept it.”
“This again comes back to the public interest and the responsibility that we have to the public. The amendment is an attempt to at least put some democratic guardrails on the process. It would modify the procedure by which the provisions of the Bill could apply to additional agreements. It would require that the Minister prepare a detailed estimate and statement on the potential cost exposure of the State arising from the prescription of any agreement under the Bill and would specify that such prescription must be agreed to by the passage of a resolution by both Houses of the Oireachtas. It seeks a minimum time of at least three hours for debates on the resolution of both Houses. It would also require inter-ministerial consultations and consultations with an Oireachtas committee in the process.”
“(7) If the Minister still wishes to proceed with the making of the order, he or she shall lay the order before both Houses of the Oireachtas, as prepared or as amended consequent on subsection (6)(c), together with his or her reasons for accepting or rejecting any recommendations of the Committee under paragraph (b) of that subsection. (8) No order shall be made under this subsection, unless a resolution approving the order and the associated estimates has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, further to a debate in each such house of a duration no less than 3 hours.”.”
“(6) Before making any order under subsection (5) the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade shall— (a) after consultation with the Minister, The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, prepare a detailed estimate of potential claims against the State arising from the agreement proposed to be prescribed, including based on the extent to which the State or public bodies have encouraged investors to invest in the State, and an associated statement, (b) provide a copy of the estimate and the statement prepared under paragraph (a) to each of the Oireachtas Committees for each of the Ministers referred to in paragraph (a), and the Committees shall undertake such scrutiny of the proposed order as they shall determine, including hearing evidence directly from each of the Ministers referred to in paragraph (a), and the Committees shall make recommendations on the order and estimates accordingly for each of the Ministers to consider, (c) each of the Ministers shall consider any of the recommendations from Committees arising from the scrutiny performed under paragraph (b), and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade shall again consult the Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation in light of the recommendations of the Committees, and (d) following the further consultation in paragraph (c), maintain the order and associated estimates as prepared under paragraph (a) or amend them accordingly on foot of the recommendations arising from paragraph (b) and the consultations under paragraph (b).”
“I move amendment No. 13: In page 4, to delete lines 24 to 38 and substitute the following: “(5) Subject to subsection (6) and (8), the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade may, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, prepare an order to prescribe an international agreement as an agreement to which this section applies where— (a) the State is,or intends to become, a party to the agreement, (b) the agreement is wholly or partly concerned with the protection of investment, and (c) the agreement provides for the making of awards pursuant to its investment dispute resolution provisions.”
“We need a full debate about this here. I would nearly go so far as to say we should have a citizens' assembly on neutrality. Four out of five Irish people have said they want to keep our neutrality. Let us have a serious conversation about the triple lock. It is unfair to pounce it in. We know there will be a Dáil majority - if it is passed by Cabinet, it will be like a single lock. I call for a debate as soon as possible and I urge the Acting Leader of the House to consider putting forward a citizens' assembly for a general conversation about our neutrality.”
“Of course, we need to increase our spending in Ireland. The underinvestment in our Defence Forces has been really worrying. No one is doubting that but getting rid of this essential mechanism will compromise our neutrality and put it seriously at risk.”
“I want to talk about the triple lock. I give huge credit to Senator Clonan, who has been a sound and constructive analyst of the danger of removing the triple lock. I know it was to come before Cabinet today. I do not know the result of that but I am guessing it got full approval. I urge all in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and all supporting this, to rethink it. We are making a really big mistake here. The UN is not perfect and the Security Council is 100% not perfect and needs massive reform, but it is the best thing we have. If we get rid of the triple lock, it will be like a single lock because the Government always has a Dáil majority to go along with Cabinet approval. There is a move towards militarisation in Europe, which I certainly am not comfortable with. Defence spending has increased in all European countries.”
“We have seen how much trade has increased and to reiterate, we are pro-trade. We have seen how much trade has increased between our two countries. Why not have a protection like this that will protect our Constitution and courts system?”
“As Senator O'Loughlin said as well, we can see already that in respect of the trade, we have really good trade relationships with Canada. We know this. I just do not understand why an amendment like this would not be put in. The Minister of State has said that it is too prescriptive but it is protecting us and protecting our own judicial system. Why would we not want to put this in? What is wrong with putting it in? If the Minister of State is not concerned about investor courts why not put this in? Work it the other way around. What harm is it going to do if the Minister of State is not concerned about it? There are ten other countries in the EU that have not agreed to this either. Like we said, they are big players like Belgium, Italy and Poland. It can be renegotiated so I do not understand that.”
“We are giving the Minister of State a really good opportunity to accept this amendment, which would alleviate the concerns we have and would actually rely on our own courts system instead of this parallel, new court system.”
“We think again that this is incompatible with the judicial sovereignty of our State and would therefore hold the ratification by the Government of CETA in its present form would infringe again upon Article 5 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Article 34.1. The creation of CETA joint committees with the powers to make binding interpretative decisions for the State in respect of important aspects of trade policy and in respect of whose activities the State would have no guarantee of being able to exert direct control or influence means that the necessary democratic control is not present. In these circumstances the conclusion is that the ratification of CETA would also violate the democracy guarantees of Article 5 of the Constitution is inevitable.”
“The fact that in those circumstances the State could thereby be exposed to damages claims on a strict liability basis in respect of otherwise validly enacted legislative measures is sufficient for constitutional purposes since it necessarily compromises the legislative sovereignty of the State, thereby we think it is violating Article 5 of the Constitution. Another effect of CETA is to allow a body composed of persons who are not judges and who are not appointed - again, we are not anti-EU, this is what we are anti - or answerable to any of the institutions of the State to exercise judicial powers in respect of the State and critically, to give the judgment which is binding and enforceable under our own domestic law.”
“If, however, the law was challenged domestically and was upheld by the Supreme Court, whose decision is final and conclusive, it would compromise our constitutional order if an investor could obtain an enforceable award of damages arising from the Supreme Court having made that decision. It is clear that assuming the procedural formalities have been complied with and in the absence of some highly unusual defence, such as fraud, the High Court enjoys no real discretion and has little option but to give effect to any award of the CETA tribunal.”
“I note the discussion we have just had. We are giving an amendment here that I think the Minister of State could accept. This amendment would clear things up. It is based on the Supreme Court judgment of Mr. Justice Hogan. It is our view that the CETA tribunal decisions will be unenforceable in the Bill. The judgment in the case of when an investor is suing the State before a tribunal for damages arising from the passing of legislation that impairs the investment in some way, a strict liability rule would compromise our domestic constitutional order and the Oireachtas must have the freedom to take policy decisions. I think the Minister of State agreed to that himself.”
“I move amendment No. 14: In page 4, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) and as non-exhaustive examples of the operation of that subsection, the Constitutional order of the State would be compromised if enforcing an award would expose the State— (a) to an award of damages, on a strict liability basis, arising from the enactment by the Oireachtas of a law— (i) the validity of which had been upheld in accordance with Article 34 of the Constitution, or (ii) the Bill for which had been referred to the Supreme Court by the President under Article 26 of the Constitution, or (b) to an award of damages which in substance amounted to a collateral attack on a decision of the Supreme Court that was, by Article 34.5.6 of the Constitution, made final and conclusive.”.”
“I want to add that. It is beneath the Minister of State to say we are anti-EU. How can he say that? The Labour Party is pro-EU. We would not bring forward these amendments or spend hours debating this otherwise. The issue for us is also the investor courts. As Senator Stephenson said, other big players, including France and Italy, are not in favour of this and 98% of the trade under this agreement is already happening. We have seen how much trade has increased between our two countries. To say we are anti-EU is totally disingenuous and I would appreciate if the Minister of State were to withdraw his comment.”
“I accept there is a physical and sensory disability team and the MS therapy centre but they are very different roles. I wonder if the Minister of State could do anything at all to push it up. It was very evident in the presentation in the audiovisual room yesterday how much of a disadvantage we are at in Sligo and Leitrim by not having someone in this role.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. It is disappointing to hear that the role has not been prioritised. Is it because we have such a wonderful MS therapy centre in the north west? It is fantastic. It is an amazing centre. It is a very different role from that of the community worker. Not only is the community worker's role about signposting and looking at resources; a community worker is also in charge of fundraising. The north west - Sligo and Leitrim - is missing out on significant funding. This weekend in particular there will be loads of fundraising activities happening all across the country, but because we do not have a community worker in Sligo we are going to miss out on that. It is a double whammy. I reiterate the importance of the community worker's role.”
“MS Ireland submitted a business plan to the Department in 2025. I wish to find out what stage that business case is at and whether there is any update on it. These people are being discriminated against based on their location, especially given that Sligo and Leitrim have the highest incidence of multiple sclerosis. The estimated cost – this has not increased in the year since it first submitted it - is €72,997. That is all it is looking for. Its role is vital in people’s lives, particularly when it comes to the initial diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. I am seeking an update in this regard.”
“They have been accessing services through neighbouring counties, such as Donegal. Donegal has been particularly generous with its resources to help these people. Everyone’s experience of living with multiple sclerosis is different. There are different levels of support based on the different needs. The role of community workers - I know this from working as one - is pointing, directing and signposting people with diagnoses to available services and assisting with grant applications. Their role is important. One of the first representations I received as a Senator was from a young woman in Sligo who has multiple sclerosis. She needed an adaptation for her car. As there is no dedicated community worker in Sligo, she reached out to me and I was able to link in with Donegal. There is a real absence in this regard.”
“I do not know whether the Minister of State was in attendance. There were many representatives on various different issues present. Two representatives were from Sligo, where there is a continued absence of services. Sligo and Leitrim are the only counties that do not have a dedicated multiple sclerosis community worker. This is alarming because Sligo, Leitrim and that region have the highest rate of multiple sclerosis in the country. Yet, they do not have a dedicated community worker. It is estimated that some 300 people in Sligo and Leitrim are living with multiple sclerosis. This is an estimate because most people become known to MS Ireland through a community worker who works on the ground. A total of 122 individuals have made themselves known to MS Ireland.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Higgins. The timing of my Commencement matter today could not have been more appropriate because this Saturday is World MS Day. This is observed worldwide, including in Ireland. World MS Day raises the awareness of the needs of people living with multiple sclerosis and their families. It is an opportunity to highlight the work of the professionals who work with and care for people with multiple sclerosis. It is also an opportunity for those with multiple sclerosis and their loved ones to acknowledge the full lives they still enjoy through events that will take place are all around the county. A lot will be happening all around this country this weekend. I raised this a number of months ago. MS Ireland organised a briefing in the audiovisual room in Leinster House yesterday.”
“There has been a surge in interest in Irish and I wonder where the MEPs sit on that. As they represent an area where we have islands and a Gaeltacht within our region, where is their role in that? As for CAP, I come from community work, and have met Mr. Mullooly and other MEPs at LEADER conferences. There is real concern among LEADER projects that their money is not going to be ring-fenced any more. What are the MEPs' roles within that? Finally, on the occupied territories Bill, am I right in referring to 27 foreign ministers? Mr. Cowen made a statement recently saying he is very much in favour of banning goods and services from an EU perspective with Israel? I might come back to him about that. What is holding it up and why is it not happening? Israel is a rogue and a terrorist state.”
“I would love to know how projects get included in that and why that part of the WRC was not included. Turning to Border counties, I live in Sligo and I am a representative in Sligo-Leitrim. What are the MEPs' moves around unity and how have they engaged on this? As Senator Tully said, the North did not want to leave Europe and was dragged out. What are the MEPs and their party groupings doing to ensure this is not just left to these talks with no actual, concrete plan put in place? Since 2022, the Irish language has been recognised as a working language in Europe. Where would they see their role in promoting the working use of the Irish language? There has been a huge resurgence and interest in Gaeilge here, thanks to a lot of cultural references such as Kneecap and other things.”
“There is no need to have it ratified; it is operating as it is. There is absolutely no reason to have a parallel court system, when we have a very mature court system ourselves. I would also like to hear the MEPs' views on that. We should not be made do something and I believe France, Italy and Belgium have a similar stance. However, it is not getting enough talk. I know it has been spoken about but I do not think it is getting enough airwaves and it is very concerning that we are not hearing more about it. I would also like to hear the MEPs' views on why the Claremorris to Collooney line under the western rail corridor, WRC, has not been included in TEN-T. Again, this is coming from the perspective of rural development and good jobs, and how we are working towards that.”
“We have seen an action plan on the implementation of the EU minimum wage directive and the Government has been dragging its heels on this but we have to have the right to collectively bargain. People want to see a social Europe. It makes sense and is a reasonable idea to have a trading bloc but not if it is to the detriment of our country, that is, if Ireland is going to be a country with shelf companies because we have weak labour laws here. I would love to hear the MEPs' views on that, particularly on collective labour laws. Moving on from that, I want to talk about CETA. This arbitration Bill is coming before us in the House tomorrow and we have debated it here twice now. Since I have been elected, this has probably been the one piece of legislation I am most concerned about.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh na feisirí Eorpacha go dtí an Teach inniu. I was not sure how this worked as a question and answer session. I was not sure how to do this. I am going to base my whole questioning around workers' rights. I am the Labour Party spokesperson for workers' rights, for rural and community development and for the Gaeltacht. I am going to base all my questioning around that. I am delighted the MEPs are here because we do not see them enough. We do not get the opportunity to meet enough so it is fantastic that they are here. I want to ask about the EU Inc. and the opportunity we have during the Presidency to look at our labour laws. We would love to see a harmonisation of labour laws right across the EU, which I do not think is going to happen, but we are lagging behind. Ireland has some of the weakest workers' rights in Europe.”
“They have built their whole lives around them and the local schools, facilities and communities. Yet there does not seem to be a correlation between that. At least then we would be increasing the social housing stock.”
“The local authority wants to buy these homes, the tenants who are in them want to live in them, and we know that the local authorities want to build up their own housing stock, but those figures show that €7.5 million is going directly into the hands of private providers - private landlords - and will stay in their remit, while just €2.5 million has been allocated to buy some of the houses that people are living in. There seems to be an upside-down approach to the housing policies within councils. The councils are being funded to continue giving money to private providers, even though the plan is to gradually phase that out. In the meantime, can the tenant in situ scheme be massively ramped up? There are landlords who want to sell to the councils. The tenants who are in those houses at the moment want to stay in them.”