Paul Murphy
Dublin South-West · People Before Profit-Solidarity · Ireland
“The Minister of State assured us we are bound by international law but then went on to talk about the fact that he wants to deploy troops outside the framework of international law. That is why the Government is getting rid of the triple lock. All the triple lock does is ensure that we only can send troops in line with international law.”
“The case for MetroLink south west is extremely strong. There are 350,000 people living between the Luas red and green lines. That is who will be served by this.”
“Hopefully the junior Minister will be able to clarify. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, said earlier to Deputy Ó Laoghaire, "The people I speak to do not like the fact that Russia has essentially removed, or will remove in the coming months, all our peacekeeping troops from UNIFIL".”
“I, too, want to ask about the senior Minister. This came up at the Dáil reform committee last week. It is very peculiar that a senior Minister is here and has answered previous questions on the triple lock today and then – no offence meant - we have the junior Minister answering these questions, which precisely prevents the continuation o…”
“Its defence is that we should not worry because the Government is only going to send them as part of an international force. I do not think anyone here thinks the Government is going to invade a country all by itself.”
“It is there in black and white in the programme for Government and the Government needs to live up to its commitment to do a new, properly independent feasibility study. I appeal to the Minister of State to ask the Minister for Transport to meet with the metro south west group which has been doing such excellent campaigning on this issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,527 lines we hold for Paul Murphy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 31.
“Obviously that needs to be matched with significant capital investment, in expanding the number of buses we have, and in expanding rail infrastructure, which is crucial. It can be done. It is about the political commitment to meet our climate targets and improving people's lives. Instead, the Government seems determined to pursue a policy of privatisation. The difficulties people experience on a daily basis with ghost buses and with apps that are giving wrong information are directly related to a privatisation agenda. Instead of an integrated system, we have the NTA, Transport for Ireland, Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead Ireland all talking to one another but only to a certain degree. We need a fully integrated, publicly owned system that recruits mechanics and drivers, there being a shortage of both, by offering decent terms and conditions.”
“You do not know how long you are going to be. It could be an hour or it could be an hour and a half. I am just going to Tallaght but because of the development patterns we have created here, there are people who are commuting much longer journeys. It is awful. This is an example. Often environmental policies are wrongly portrayed as something that make people's lives harder and more difficult, whereas this is about making people's lives better, cheaper and easier. It is doable. It is a question of political will to implement free public transport. People are surprised at how low a cost it is to turn what we currently have into a free service. It is about €650 million a year.”
“Good quality and fast public transport should become a realistic option. This is probably first and foremost an environmental issue. Transport is our second biggest sector for carbon emissions. It is also a cost-of-living issue with people spending thousands of euro a year on transport. Car transport is the most expensive transport but still public transport is expensive and price is a factor for people. It is also a quality of life issue. I would say there are very many people for whom the worst part of their day is sitting in traffic during long commutes. Until a few months ago, I was back in my car for most of my commuting because of the crèche run. Thankfully, I got a cargo bike since, so I am now out of it. Definitely the worst part of my day was driving home in traffic with the child in the back and not happy there.”
“I want to thank all the participants in the Global March to Gaza, particularly the Irish ones, for the support we received from ordinary people in this country. I express my wish that everyone currently being detained by the Egyptian authorities is released, able to go home, and to continue to apply pressure to prevent the sort of scenes we saw yesterday where more than 50 people were killed by Israeli tanks while queuing to access humanitarian aid. The blockade and forced starvation needs to end. I thank Deputy O'Gorman for bringing forward this motion, which we support. We believe that we need free and frequent public transport. That should be the goal, and not something that is just accessible in urban areas but also outside of urban areas and for as many people as possible.”
“It shouldn't require flotillas, it shouldn't require civilians getting on boats and trying to highlight this, it should require the international community growing a backbone here and saying stop. Stop the genocide. The Government should take its own advice, grow a backbone, do everything it can to stop the genocide and stop the Central Bank facilitating the sale of these bonds. However, I have no confidence in the so-called international community of western governments that are complicit in, fund and support the genocide. I have confidence in the international community of ordinary people, such as those on the streets, trade unions, mothers, the people on the boats and the people on the march to Gaza, which I am proud to be participating in.”
“We have to do everything in our power to stop a genocide taking place, which means no more hiding behind the technicalities of the EU prospectus regulation, which, by the way, is supposed to be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Is the Minister’s argument seriously that a regulation on financial prospectuses should override the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide? He is offended when it is said he is complicit, but what else can it possibly be? Just yesterday, the Tánaiste stated: Anything that can be done to make sure the eyes of the world are fixed on Gaza, at a time when the international community is failing to do enough for Gaza and for the children of Gaza, is a good and appropriate thing.”
“First, I thank the Social Democrats for using its time to allow this joint motion to be debated. There is a lot of obfuscation from the Government and an attempt to mislead people in the countermotion and in the Minister’s speech. It is true that the Central Bank does not sell, endorse or oversee these bonds, but the key point is that it is facilitating the sale of Israeli bonds across the European Union that pay for the genocide in Gaza. There is no question that Israel is carrying out a genocide; the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have said it on the Dáil record. However, they seem to think they will say it and get some credit for saying it, and that it will not have any consequences. It must have legal and moral consequences.”
“That is who Jim O'Callaghan is aping, trying to look hard on migration and trying to problematise migration to distract from the failures of the Government. I have one question. It has been reported in some places that at least some of the children being deported were born in Ireland. Is that the case?”
“A shared island should not have an invisible hard border for non-EU migrants, but that is the case currently. I have raised this multiple times. In the past a somewhat sympathetic hearing was given to the likes of the North West Migrants Forum. In this atmosphere of performative cruelty by the Government on migration, I fear it will not make any moves on this. I would be interested to hear it. I follow up on the question raised by Deputy Coppinger. We are talking about primary school kids being taken out of their home, other children who go to school with them being traumatised, the principal talking about the impact this is having, and then the Minister, let us be clear, goes onto social media and boasts about it. It is Trump-like.”
“Does the Taoiseach think it is appropriate that the two surgeons representing Temple Street in these meetings conducted a significant number of unnecessary operations, according to the audit? Instead of driving it, they should be nowhere near this process.”
“Two weeks ago, I raised with the Taoiseach the issue of unnecessary surgeries on children said to have hip dysplasia and unnecessary osteotomies. I questioned why the surgeons responsible had not been suspended or at the very least suspended from carrying out osteotomies. Since then, I have learned it is even worse than I feared. There was a meeting last Tuesday to decide on surgical indicators into the future for which children should get these operations. The two surgeons representing Temple Street were involved in doing unnecessary surgeries, according to the audit. The people responsible for the crisis are now writing the rules for who will get these operations in the future. It is mind-blowing. I do not know if the Government is aware of that.”
“Would the Taoiseach agree with the Department of Defence in committee that the heads of Bill would allow Irish troops, more than 50, to be sent abroad without UN approval as part of US-led coalitions or as part of NATO or EU-led missions? Does the Taoiseach agree with it that it would have meant that troops could have been sent to participate in the invasion of Iraq?”
“The Taoiseach referenced the galloping militarisation happening at EU level. It underlines the importance of Ireland's neutrality in that context and the importance of the struggle to defend that neutrality. Significant numbers will be on the streets this Saturday at 2 p.m. at the Garden of Remembrance to do so. What we have heard about the triple lock has confirmed the basic point the Taoiseach made in 2013, which was that it is at the core of our neutrality. What we have seen in the heads of Bill and what we heard in the Oireachtas committee from the Department of Defence two weeks ago has underlined our fears and the fact that what is proposed is a total abolition of the triple lock and the effective end of what is left of neutrality.”
“"RTÉ Investigates" made for really harrowing watching. We saw people treated without any shred of human dignity, treated like burdens. We need to debate this in the Dáil this week. We need to implement adult safeguarding legislation and mandatory reporting. We also need to deal with the fact we are the most privatised system in the European Union in terms of nursing home care. That did not happen by accident; it happened through tax incentives from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. That is the root cause of the problem.”
“Let me finish the point. It is also a recipe for constructive evictions, where the landlord says, "I am not going to fix your heating", "I am not going to fix your toilet" and "I am going to force you out so that I can reset the rent." The final thing I ask is for the Taoiseach to agree-----”
“The Taoiseach defends the idea that if tenants leave during the six-year period and it is not a no-fault eviction, it can be reset. The Taoiseach is saying he is in favour of that, and it is not a mistake. Any time a tenant leaves, the rent can be reset.”
“It is not me suggesting it. The Government's own press statement refers to a right to reset. It is not just in a written press statement; it is also what the Minister, Deputy Browne, told the media. At the press conference earlier he said what happens is that at the end of the six years, the rate-setting piece - effectively the rent - could be put back to the market in line with what the press statement says.”
“It is. I will read it again. It does say that. As part of this master of the spin, it also says "Tenancies of unlimited duration to be enhanced by introduction of rolling-six year tenancies ...". That is some enhancement, Taoiseach. You are getting rid of tenancies of unlimited duration and going back to the old system of rolling six-year tenancies. What you are presenting is Orwellian. The logic of this is the Government wants rents to rise. It is not enough that they have doubled over the past ten years. It is not enough that a third of tenants are now paying more than 50% of their net income on rent. It is not enough that more and more landlords are actually coming into the market. The Government wants rents to go up even faster. That is why tenants, renters-----”
“It is what it says in the press statement. It states: "All landlords". What the Government is therefore saying to existing and new tenants - all of them - is they get the limited protection of the 2% or CPI if it is new, for six years. At six years it is a free for all. Landlords get to reset to market rate. There will be six 2% increases and then 40%, 30% or an unimaginable level that is simply not affordable. That is what the press statement-----”
“It gets its nice headlines that say rent pressure zones are to extended to the whole country in a significant expansion of tenants' rights when in reality it is getting rid of the rent pressure zones. I will read it for the third time today and very slowly for the Taoiseach: "All landlords will have the right to reset rent where the rent is below market at the end of each six-year tenancy". It is not just new landlords, not just big landlords, not just small landlords, but every single landlord. That means it affects existing tenants and new tenants. If the Minister could inform the Taoiseach what is going on here and what is in the policy, that would be very helpful.”
“Three times now the Taoiseach has been asked effectively the same question. I am going to ask it again. It is not clear to me if the Taoiseach does not understand his Government's proposal, he is misleading the House about his Government's proposal or the press statement issued by the Minister, Deputy Browne's Department is inaccurate. The Taoiseach needs to clarify for us which it is, because not just once or twice but about five or six times now he has said existing tenants will be capped at 2%, new tenancies will be capped at CPI and that these are the strongest set of rent protection measures we have ever had. The truth is, if the press statement is accurate, that the Government is absolutely gutting the rent pressure zones.”
“However, the EPA has not made its decision. This is a decision made by the Department. The Minister of State made reference to arterial drainage. That is an outdated practice that can often lead to more flooding than would naturally occur. The main justification for exempting rivers from quality standards is highly questionable. It is in breach of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, which outlined that the Arterial Drainage Act is no longer fit for purpose. The Government is now using it as an excuse to lower the standards for our water.”
“It found bodies that could meet the designation but final designation is the job of the Department. In its letter to the Department on the issue, the EPA stated that it recommended consideration by the Minister of a number of issues as part of the final designation. It recommended that the Department "carry out a wider national policy review of whether the specified uses are appropriate during the 3rd river basin management planning cycle". It also recommended "that waterbody specific designation tests, that are informed by the policy review, should be carried out in due course". The Department has failed to do that. The Minister of State referred to the change in these physical conditions based on expert judgment underpinned by new assessment tools. He is not saying that the Government has done that but that the EPA has done it.”
“The Minister of State referred to a realistic yet stringent standard. I presume he will accept that it is deliberately a much less stringent standard than if those water bodies were not redesignated as highly modified water bodies. The reply was in line with what I am saying. This is the Government throwing in the towel in respect of improving the quality of our water bodies. To quote Ms Joanna Braniff of the Rivers Trust, it shows there is no ambition for these rivers and that we are writing them off. The Minister of State, as I heard the Taoiseach do earlier in the week, effectively tried to pass the buck to the EPA. He effectively misquoted what the EPA has done. The EPA carried out work in 2022 to identify candidates for this designation - it engaged with stakeholders - but it was not the final designation.”
“Those specified use owners are the Department and the OPW. I have the Excel spreadsheet here just saying "Yes" 433 times. It is the definition of a box-ticking exercise. There is a second column with "Yes" written 433 times in answer to the question, "Will the body fail good ecological status?" That lets the cat out of the bag. It is patently obvious that the Government is doing this to wriggle out of its obligations to bring water bodies up to good ecological status by 2027 and to hell with the cost to the environment and the damage to biodiversity. Is the Minister of State content to preside over a further decline of our rivers and lakes? Is he content to not even try to restore them and instead to throw in the towel and redesignate them as heavily modified in order that the Government is not under any pressure to improve them?”
“An Taisce finds no evidence the Department bothered to do this and concludes "This is a total failure by the Department to identify the restoration measures required to achieve [good ecological status]." The second step is to examine whether those restoration measures would have significant adverse effects on the specified uses for the rivers, which can include providing drinking water supply, power generation, irrigation, flood protection or land drainage. Here An Taisce finds "Given that there has been no analysis of what restoration measures would be required... it [is] impossible for the Department to adequately answer this question." Did that stop the Department? No. It went ahead and inputted the word "Yes" to an Excel spreadsheet 433 times, apparently on the say-so of the specified use owners.”
“In the late 1980s, we had more than 500 pristine water bodies; there are only 20 today. Rather than taking action to fix that, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is not just moving the goalposts, but demolishing the goalposts. An Taisce's submission to the public consultation is damning of the redesignation process. It states the consultation "is wholly inadequate from a public participation perspective" because "the Department have manifestly failed to adequately carry out any of the designation tests". It provides a detailed explanation of what the designation tests are supposed to be under EU law and, step by step, shows how the Department has failed to carry them out. The first step is supposed to be to identify possible restoration measures for the rivers.”
“A public consultation on redesignating 433 rivers, streams and lakes as "heavily modified water bodies", closed last week. If the redesignation goes ahead, it will mean a massive increase in the number of these "heavily modified water bodies" from 33 to 466. All the main rivers in Dublin - the Liffey, the Dodder, the Poddle - as well as iconic rivers like the Boyne, the Corrib and the Shannon, will be included. The reason the Government is doing this is that heavily modified water bodies do not have to meet EU water quality standards, which require all our rivers, lakes and estuaries to achieve good water quality by 2027. The Government is failing abysmally to achieve those standards; more than half of our rivers, lakes and estuaries are in an unhealthy state.”
“It says it is a political choice about whether the Government goes with the existing Bill or drafts a new Bill. Instead, it is up to the Department. In any case, this is all likely to end up in an EU court. It is likely the European Commission will challenge even a Bill that only focuses on goods. If there is a strong legal case, and maybe a case can be made both ways in terms of services, why do we not take the full belt and braces approach and defend it and then see what the ECJ says?”
“There is a significant weight of learned legal opinion which says the Government can do goods and services. The Tánaiste will have seen the letter from 350-plus of Ireland's most prominent lawyers stating that they do not consider there to be any insurmountable legal obstacles preventing the adoption of legislation prohibiting the import of goods and services produced in the unlawful Israeli settlements. Two of the UK's most prominent EU law experts, cited by the Attorney General himself, have taken the view that the prohibition of settlement services, to the extent that they fall within the scope of EU law, is also justified by reasons of public policy. I think the Tánaiste effectively said that he did not have Attorney General advice saying he could not include services. The AG advice, in fact, does not mention anything.”
“Similarly, the Attorney General's advice, which has been leaked on The Ditch , and which Deputy O'Gorman has referred to, says there has been no reference to an issue around services in his very detailed legal advice. People can check that for themselves. Not including services seems to me to be a policy choice. The Tánaiste has said in the last few weeks that this is a legal decision but I would like to hear the rationale and basis on which this legal distinction is being made.”
“What is now important is that we implement this Bill as urgently as possible and that we do it right. Doing it right does not mean excluding the majority of our trade with the occupied territories; it means including goods and services. I would like to get into, in some detail, what the Tánaiste says is the legal basis for excluding services is. He said we have a narrow legal pathway identified by the ICJ and the Attorney General. However, the ICJ makes no distinction between trade in goods and trade in services. It says that states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements.”
“It is unacceptable that in 2025 children are being denied access to education because of a lack of investment, planning and political will. This protest is a vital opportunity to show those families will not be silenced or sidelined any longer. Will the Tánaiste guarantee that every child will have an appropriate school place in their community?”
“On Saturday week, 7 June, at 2 p.m. at the Garden of Remembrance, parents, families and their supporters will hold yet another protest to demand their children with additional needs have the right to education, just like any other child - appropriate education in their community as outlined in the UNCRPD. The protest is part of a growing national movement, equality in education, demanding urgent action to ensure children with additional needs receive the education support and resources they deserve. These parents should not be forced to sleep outside the Dáil or to organise protests and public meetings around the country. It is a basic thing to have a school place with the support and staff their children need to thrive.”
“are larger than last year due to more conservative delivery of measures", and, "there are no significant additional measures in CAP 2025". The Government is going to break our own climate laws and cost us up to €26 billion in fines.”
“The legally binding target is 51%. That is the very least of what the science demands. However, we are miles off that and there is no indication whatsoever that the Government will speed up ambition. Things are going in the opposite direction. The EPA report states that emissions will fall by only 23% - that is the best-case scenario - with additional measures that have not even been agreed yet. The outlook with existing measures, which also optimistically assumes they will be fully implemented, is for a reduction of less than 9% by 2030. It is projected that emissions in agriculture, our biggest emitting sector, will increase. The EPA's report is damning of the policy of the Government. It states, "Projected gaps ...”
“Does the Taoiseach agree that these surgeons should, at the very least, not now be conducting osteotomies? That can be done immediately and needs to be done immediately. The CHI statement is clear-----”
“I make the point that the email which suspended the MDTs, which was incredible, was cc'd to the senior management at Cappagh. It should have raised a red flag. Clearly, it did not because it then proceeded to happen and the MDTs were suspended.”
“Sometimes, when people are discussing this issue, they talk about culture in a disembodied sense, that a culture that was bad existed. Clearly, there was in this case. However, the culture was created by individuals and carried on by individuals. The top surgeons in question were a really big part of this. The question has to be asked in terms of what the motivation was. Was the motivation financial? I heard the figures, on top of salaries - that consultants receive €1,500 for the first hip and another €750 for the second. These are relatively easy operations for the surgeons to do. The Taoiseach can see how that may have a significant distorting effect on what is happening in our hospitals and proves the basic point that we need to have a proper public health system.”
“First, why are the surgeons who conducted hundreds on unnecessary surgeries still operating on children? One of them could do an osteotomy tomorrow. Surely they need to be suspended, or, at the very least, stopped from performing osteotomies until the audit is verified. Second, the Government and CHI have publicly committed to independently reviewing all of these osteotomies, but the clinical director of CHI has emailed staff saying, "it is acknowledged that some patients and parents may request a retrospective review of their case to determine the indications for surgery". Does the Taoiseach agree that the onus should not be on parents to request that their cases be reviewed? Finally, does the Taoiseach agree that the review should not be limited to patients from 2010 onward, as is clearly indicated in CHI's statement?”
“It will be up to the patient's individual consultant to review the X-ray and decide if they wish to proceed. Surgeries are being cancelled because other surgeons thought they were unnecessary. Instead of saying something was wrong, the clinical director said we will stop discussing them at the MDT and it will be fully in the hands of the original surgeon to decide what he or she would do. That is incredible. What was the motivation for this? If Hannah had been operated on, because they had private health insurance, the surgeon would have made €1,500 for the first hip and another €750 for the second. That is what they would have made for Emilia's two hips. This is an example of the poisonous role of private profit in what should be a public health system. I have three questions for the Taoiseach.”
“The mother did not trust the doctor at this stage. She went back to the Coombe, where the doctor said that was a load of nonsense and that she did not need either hip done. No hip was done. It is a chilling example of what this scandal looks like to parents. What it looked like inside the hospitals is illustrated by an email sent by then clinical director of Cappagh in November 2023: Recently, it has become apparent that many children listed for pelvic osteotomies are being cancelled or are having their surgery deferred at short notice, thereby causing inefficiencies on surgical lists. Following a meeting today, I have decided that patients listed for pelvic osteotomies will no longer be discussed at the MDT [multidisciplinary team].”
“When Emilia was three years old she had osteotomies on both hips at Temple Street hospital. Her mother felt unduly and inappropriately pressured by the surgeon. It started out with the possibility that she might need one hip done and then it was an absolute necessity to get both done. Emilia was six before she could walk property. She was the slowest to do a cartwheel and the last to ride a bike. She still has pain when she climbs stairs. Her younger sister Hannah was then later in Temple Street with an unrelated eye condition. The same surgeon spotted her and insisted on checking her for hip dysplasia. The mother said that was not necessary as she had been checked at the Coombe hospital and everything was fine, but the doctor insisted. He logged into the CHI database, looked at the scan and said Hannah needed to get both hips done.”
“We need to ban the Israeli bonds, stop financing a genocide through the Irish Central Bank, stop the overflights and stop sitting on the draft report the Government has had since March. When is it going to publish that report and act on it, with full sanctions against the State of Israel?”
“Other examples include protestors from Mothers Against Genocide being arrested, strip-searched and called liars by An Garda Síochána and the Minister for Justice, Deputy O’Callaghan, and Kneecap facing terrorism charges for speaking out against the genocide. Governments are trying to suppress the Palestine solidarity movements because they know we have the weight of public opinion behind us. That is forcing them to act. Without the movement, there would be no talk of the occupied territories Bill, even in its delayed, watered-down form, or of sanctions against Israel. The Government would have done less than nothing if it had not been under constant pressure to act. What it has done so far is nowhere near good enough.”
“Governments in the West have valued the lives of Palestinian children at a fraction of those of Israeli children. The Palestinian solidarity movement in Ireland and around the world has not. Israel’s genocide in Gaza has been relentless. We have seen it on our screens. So too has been the opposition to the genocide, however. On May Day, three protesters from Palestine Action Éire got onto the runway at Shannon Airport, rightly taking action where our Government refuses to in attempting to intercept a US military aircraft on its way to support the genocide. They are now facing criminal charges and a trial in July. They should be applauded, not criminalised. They are just one of the examples of the oppression being meted out against Palestinian protestors.”
“We know the victims in all of this are not the settler colonists of Israel but, rather, the oppressed people of occupied Palestine. They have every right to defend themselves like we did. While the courage and perseverance of the people of Gaza over the past year and a half has been incredible, the sheer weight of arms and military and political support given to Israel by the US and the European Union is fuelling a genocide that they cannot stop on their own. The only thing that can stop this genocide now is decisive international action. The only way that will happen is through people power, international solidarity and resistance. We cannot rely on the same governments and institutions that have armed and financed Israel, continued to trade with Israel and turned a blind eye to the transit of weapons to Israel.”
“The gap between the words and the actions of the Government on Palestine grows ever bigger because the words get stronger but the Government refuses to act. What happens in debates like this or the one last night is that the Government comes in and effectively complains that it is not congratulated for not being as complicit in the genocide as the states that are literally funding it and arming Israel. This is simply not good enough. The people outside and those who will gather later do not think it is good enough, nor does the average person on the street. People are appalled at the genocide that is being inflicted on the innocent men, women and children in Gaza. We remember our history of occupation and forced starvation.”
“What is mentioned here at the moment in the CHI press statement, for example, is that all the operations are being studied from 2010 in Temple Street. We know these novel osteotomies started in 2002. It does not seem to me there is any good reason to leave them out. The argument is they have reached skeletal maturity. They still deserve to know if they were wrongly operated on. That may have implications for their health into the future.”
“That is a significant incentive that may well have distorted the best health outcome for children and shows the poisonous role of private money in a public health system. Is the Minister confident that CHI agrees with her when she says there is going to be a full review of every osteotomy done to see whether the operations were needed? I do not mean just to see that there were no complications but whether those children needed those operations. The parents do not need to request that, although, of course, they will need to consent to it. It should, however, be across the board. The Minister might check to see that CHI has the same understanding of the situation as she does. Why are children from earlier than 2010 being excluded? Is it because they are no longer children?”