Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Dublin Mid-West · Independent · Ireland
“As I have mentioned in the House before, if a border poll passes by 52% to 48%, the legal threshold of the Good Friday Agreement is met but the social consensus is not and moving 800,000 citizens into a new state against their explicit, democratic will does risk causing civil unrest.”
“We also have other gaps that are much smaller, like a ten-year phased transition, reducing the net annual cost to between €2.5 billion and €3 billion. We then had the middle figure of about €11 billion. We actually do not know how much it is going to cost but we do know it is going to cost something.”
“For example, adopting a single currency, getting rid of the exchange rate volatility and the transaction costs for cross-Border businesses are all advantages.”
“I would be loath to call a border poll right now because of the risks associated with that, but if a border poll did occur, the State would have to be prepared for the huge structural disruptions that would follow, so we have to start working now - that is why this debate is welcome - without arrogantly presuming it is going to become a r…”
“I have been listening to this debate in my office since Deputy Currie started her contribution. I always follow these debates on Irish unity with interest as someone who wants to see a united Ireland by consent.”
“Some have been mentioned in this House, such as a devolved regional assembly in Stormont to preserve local governance for the unionist community, a shared bill of rights protecting the dual Irish-British citizenship, and re-evaluating our relationship with the Commonwealth.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,194 lines we hold for Paul Nicholas Gogarty, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 24.
“I welcome this legislation that updates Coco's Law, which made it an offence to share or threaten to share intimate images without consent. Much has changed in recent years. At the time, the legislation did not explicitly criminalise the generation of a sexualised image of someone without consent, the creation of deep fake images, the manipulation of existing images to make them sexual, or - and this is a fundamental part of the Bill - the production of harmful images, even if they are never shared. I have to ask why anyone would produce an image if not to share it. It is then there possibly as a coercive threat, which goes back to the fundamental reason for Coco's Law, which criminalises threatening as well as doing it.”
“There is dangerous behaviour in cars – speeding, phone use, breaking lights, selfish behaviour, dangerous scramblers, e-scooters and illegal driving, unchecked far too often – and while safety measures have been announced, they have not been implemented yet or delivered quickly enough. These include the lower speed limits, stronger penalties and rules for the long-term learner drivers. Meanwhile, more families grieve. We need a zero-tolerance approach to breaking red lights, yellow-box misbehaviour, scooters with no visibility, scramblers and sulky racing on public roads. We probably also need a dedicated Garda traffic corps that goes beyond the internal Garda roads policing unit. We need higher fines, more seizures and zero tolerance at this stage.”
“It has been a year now since we last had statements on road safety, and in the interim, we have multiple vehicle-related deaths. In 2025, there were 185 fatalities recorded by the RSA - that is up 8% - comprising 76 drivers, 41 pedestrians, 30 motorcyclists, 21 passengers, 14 cyclists and three e-scooter users. There have been too many tragic deaths in the first five weeks of this year as well. My thoughts go out to the families and individuals involved in the bus incident today. More details will come out in due course. The Government has to bear responsibility for all these deaths over the last number of years because the system is not functioning. Enforcement has weakened as Garda roads policing numbers have fallen and it will get worse.”
“We should engage and open that process again to have real Seanad reform, as was the wish of the people in the referendum over ten years ago. The Government might revisit the issue and look at real Seanad reform this time around.”
“I recently had a very engaging chat with students from the politics and society class in St. Joseph's College. It is a school the Tánaiste is very familiar with. They asked some very interesting questions, including one on Seanad reform and specifically about having more diverse voices and minority voices included, going beyond the Taoiseach's nominees to assist. I was thinking about that in the context of the Manning report which proposes having more of a democratic input from the public. We have seen the expansion of the universities on the university panel, which is welcome, but we need to make the Seanad more democratic. For example, we could have different sections like labour and arts where a member of the electorate could choose the section they wish to vote in.”
“Obviously, there are questions, as others have said, about Brazilian beef, including in the context of banned hormones, traceability and the environmental impact, which is why, on balance, I support the calls, on the basis of environmental grounds in particular, not to implement the Mercosur deal. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy and grandstanding involved here. Let the man speak tomorrow and see what he has to say. The pressure might take a toll, but we have to put it into context. Ultimately, if you do not have people's confidence, then the writing is on the wall. He may have to make the decision in that regard himself. Let us give him a week or so and see what happens.”
“In principle, I support the motion because if you have lost the confidence of the farmers whose produce you are trying to promote, then the writing is on the wall. Mr. Murrin will, I understand, be making a presentation to a committee tomorrow. We have to listen to what he has to say. I am conscious that the vote on the motion will not be taken tonight in any event. I am reserving judgment on this matter, particularly as we are not talking about Peter Mandelson giving away state secrets or a child molester like Jeffrey Epstein. We are talking about someone whose company is importing Brazilian beef.”
“He might also respond to the point about the resourcing of the various bodies that will have to follow through on this. I have to acknowledge there is a lot of good stuff in the Bill but we need to make sure it is actually going to work rather than creating loopholes and leading to people paying higher rents down the line.”
“If the Bill does not require proof of occupation after the tenant leaves, minimum occupation periods and RTB follow-up checks, then there are going to be a lot of cracks to be falling through. The RTB is already not sufficiently funded. I know of one very dodgy landlord operating in my constituency who has multiple units that I have reported for not being registered with the RTB and for other planning issues. I am not naming names, but I am pointing out that two years later nothing has happened. That is an unfortunate situation. We will see the boundaries of the law being stretched unless we have rigorous enforcement. That is something we need to look at. Can the Minister of State give any guarantees that between Committee and Report Stages we are going to have actual guarantees for the enforcement of these rules?”
“The Bill does not require proof of actual timelines for listing the sale or specify the penalties for failure to complete a sale. That means a landlord can credibly issue a notice to sell even if it is not ultimately completed. We need to get tighter on that. Regarding the termination for substantial refurbishment, the Bill does not go too much into the definition of "substantial", so a landlord could plan works, provide contractor quotes, carry out limited works and then relet at a higher market rate. Where are the enforcement and inspection to make sure that a loophole is not going to be made? Then there are the own-use or family-use grounds, which are difficult to disprove.”
“There is also a credible concern that the Bill may paradoxically undermine security of tenure despite its stated aim of enhancing it. Restrictions on terminations are very welcome but they sit alongside provisions that may encourage landlords to reset tenancies more frequently than before in order to access the higher market rents. If the financial incentive tends to become stronger than the so-called regulatory disincentive, then tenants may find themselves less secure. We could see certain types of landlords and institutional landlords being more active in looking at ways at getting around the regulations or being flexible in terms of the definitions, such as for "refurbishment". For example, one of the grounds is termination for sale.”
“We have the gradual disappearance of smaller landlords, the type of people who are more likely to charge affordable rents in return for a reliable and, in one sense of the phrase, low-maintenance tenant. Instead, we are pushing the boat out for investor landlords, making it easier for them to hike up their rents. I get the logic, and I support the 2% rent freeze, but there is still a real risk that some of the measures could push up rents even higher. By exempting new units from certain caps, the Bill could end up creating a two-tier market, as others have said, whereby new developments can charge a lot more, even allowing for the consumer price index. This is something that will continue as long as demand massively outstrips supply and we could do more.”
“We are carrying the load, with tens of thousands of housing units zoned but insufficient building taking place. Alongside this, thanks to almost every political party in this Chamber, appalling decisions were made to benefit developers but not the people living in the areas who need the facilities. These areas will be ghettoised without proper transport, education and community infrastructure. We had a chance with Clonburris strategic development zone but a hames was made of it but this is another day's debate. In terms of assisting with supply, nothing in the Bill addresses barriers to construction such as costs, slow delivery, planning and other aspects.”
“I support the Bill and I must acknowledge that many of the proposals are welcome in principle. Tenants across the country, and particularly in my constituency of Dublin Mid-West, have had a torrid time over the past 20 years with many people facing termination of tenancy with few viable options for alternative accommodation. We do need more protection and a simpler and more transparent system. While the Bill has some positive elements, I do not think it will go far enough. It will not lead to more homes being built or more homes in the right areas with transport, education, community and other facilities alongside them. The core problem in Dublin is the shortage of supply. In my constituency, more than any other part of Dublin, we have seen huge tracts of land already zoned.”
“The legislation on paper creates higher standards but I want to emphasise that without the tools to increase the capacity and to ensure staff are kept and more staff are retained, these standards risk remaining aspirational.”
“We have had documented cases where children were told to return to unsafe homes or where the responsibility for their welfare was disputed between housing authorities and Tusla. The Bill does strengthen the general duties of care and co-operation but it does not actually give any clear statutory responsibility for homeless children. Oversight bodies have documented delays also in assigning social workers, inconsistent guardianship arrangements, and the use of unsuitable accommodation. There is a lot in the Bill but it does not tackle chronic resource pressures that tie in with all the systemic failures we have seen, such as the high caseloads, the staff turnover and, as I mentioned, the disparities in services around the country.”
“The delays in vetting foster carers and inconsistent information sharing have caused major problems. In principle, embedding the stronger safeguards in law is a meaningful improvement. However, the Bill does have some notable gaps which the Ombudsman for Children has raised, for example, in terms of voluntary care. For years children have remained in voluntary care arrangements without adequate oversight, clear timelines or consistent review processes. While the Bill does improve that framework, it does not have the robust statutory protections that many advocates like the ombudsman believe are essential to prevent drift and may mean things will just go and that because we have this legislation, things are fine. We need to ensure accountability. There are also unresolved issues in terms of children presenting as homeless.”
“I have raised issues already regarding people falling between the cracks in the fragmented service. The creation of an coiste forfheidhmithe agus idirghníomhaireachta um chúram leanaí responds directly to these failures by establishing this formal structure. Vetting provisions will be further strengthened to give full effect to Directive 2011/93/EU. This is also important because we have had delays in vetting foster carers or volunteers, regular poor communication with the National Vetting Bureau, and cases where relevant information about the adults in a child's life was not shared or was not shared in a prompt manner. Other Deputies referred to child sexual exploitation as one situation where people have been allowed to fall through the cracks.”
“These types of issues have been highlighted repeatedly by HIQA, the Ombudsman for Children, the Children's Rights Alliance and numerous case reviews. In that context, the Bill's modernisation of the Child Care Act 1991 is welcome and necessary. The Bill will introduce clear statutory principles to place the child's best interests at the centre, affirming the right to be heard and requiring proportionate rights-based interventions at all times. It has been broadly welcomed many of the various oversight bodies and practitioners who have long argued that the absence of these principles in legislation and the lack of a statutory basis for them has contributed to inconsistencies around the country, depending on the area people are in. The Bill's emphasis on this inter-agency co-operation is definitely a step forward.”
“In fairness, the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2025 is a substantial piece of work. It needs to be because it is the first real reform of our child protection laws in more than 30 years. It comes after a very long and well-documented history of systemic failures, inconsistent practice and persistent gaps in co-ordination between the agencies, especially within Tusla's work. For example, we have had situations where children have been known to multiple agencies but the information was not shared. There have been cases of severe neglect where schools repeatedly raised concerns but there was no co-ordinated response. We have also had cases involving children with complex needs, disability, mental health issues and addiction issues in the family where there was a failure by agencies because no one took the lead.”
“Maybe we need to guarantee access to free, independent legal counselling at all stages, including detention decisions and age assessments and strengthen age and vulnerability assessment procedures. We should maybe restore oral appeals as the default and not the exception to make sure there is fairness in the system, and finally, guarantee the full independence and adequate funding of the appeals bodies and the chief inspectorate. If these changes were made, we could have a Bill that is firm, fair and, crucially still, fast, if the proper resourcing is put in. In many circumstances, the reason it took so long before was down to processing and staffing issues. We could have a Bill that protects our borders and respects basic human rights. It is not a case of either-or.”
“Vulnerability assessments are preliminary only and are not ongoing either, meaning victims of trafficking, people who have been tortured or people with disabilities, including mental disabilities, may fall through the cracks. The age assessment procedures are also unclear and oral appeals are restrictive. Surely best practice is to always allow people to be heard in person whenever they want. It is not wrong for the people of Ireland to want a tougher system but as a democracy, they also want a system that can withstand legal challenge; protect the vulnerable, especially children; and ensure faith in the process, which I am not sure the Bill, as it is currently proposed, will do. Maybe we need to explicitly prohibit the detention of unaccompanied children, except in very exceptional circumstances with automatic judicial oversight.”
“The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Ombudsman for Children and others have raised serious concerns about how things could operate in a real-life situation. The Bill expands the arrest and detention powers, which I welcome in certain circumstances but it also includes the possibility of detaining unaccompanied children. That is a line we should not cross without absolutely necessary and watertight safeguards. We are not the Trump Administration, and those with a better knowledge than me are arguing that provisions on legal counselling are too vague, leaving applicants, including vulnerable people, without clear access to independent advice at key stages.”
“Ireland needs a tougher, faster and more enforceable international protection system. Communities are under pressure around the country. Services are stretched and the current system is not working for anyone - not for the State, for genuine refugees or for the public, which expects a fair but firm approach. I have said before that most economic migrants are decent people looking for a better life but these need to be dealt with through a work permit system. Yes, we need quicker decisions and a system where a final refusal actually means a person leaves the State. However, agreeing with these broad aims is not the same as being able to support the Bill in front of us because I am not sure this legislation strikes a balance that a modern, rights-based democracy needs to have.”
“It has to make sure that it follows up like with Dart+ South West, for example, or the Luas to Lucan and increased capacity for the Luas to Saggart. All these things go together. I am quite jaded but prove me wrong.”
“We should be borrowing and even breaching the EU growth and stability pact to invest in the infrastructure that will actually gain us revenue down the line. We are doing it too slowly. I take on board that we do have, let us say, people who take judicial reviews who do not always have the common good at heart. I do take a board on board that we have to restrict that but, equally, there are communities in my constituency and all around the country who put in submissions and object to proposals because they want infrastructure and facilities tied in alongside housing. In areas like the Clonburris strategic development zone, it is a very poor SDZ. Adamstown is a little bit better. There are a lot of areas around my constituency where the Government is putting in lots of houses but no infrastructure.”
“As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows, I have some experience of being angry and losing my rag but it has to be used sparingly. In this context, I would use words like "exasperation", "frustration", "cynicism" and "being jaded overall" in terms of Government promises that have never been brought forward. I am, therefore, trying to put on my positive hat for a second. Obviously, this plan is trying to employ 62 people in an infrastructure division in the Department of public expenditure and reform with a whole lot of technical experts trying to bring all the agencies together. On paper, that is a good thing because they have not been working together in a holistic way but, unfortunately, the actual amount of investment that is required for our energy grid and water infrastructure is a paltry amount.”
“It is unfortunate that we need to deliver this emergency assistance that disabled people urgently deserve now. I urge the Government to allocate this payment on a once-off basis pending the introduction of a permanent needs-based allowance. We have to take a holistic view of people with disabilities regarding job opportunities, how incomes can be increased and how costs can be cut overall. Above all, we need a regular income that reflects the additional cost for disabled people and this once-off payment has to come in this year.”
“The Government's own research shows that the extra cost of living with disability can reach almost €15,000 a year when indexed link to inflation, yet instead of easing that burden, budget 2026 cut disabled people's incomes by an estimated €1,400. The €400 emergency winter payment being called for today would provide some immediate relief to those who need it most, the people who are disproportionately affected by high energy bills, food price inflation and housing costs because they spend more time at home and face unavoidable disability-related expenses. If the Government wants to do what it says about targeting resources where they are needed, this is one place to start. It is exactly that and it would cost €124 million, which is half the amount of money wasted on the budget giveaway to developers for apartments that are already built.”
“With one in five disabled people living in consistent poverty, which is almost four times the national average, and with about two in five experiencing enforced deprivation, this cold and constantly wet winter paints nothing but a picture of cold homes, skipped meals and lives lived in constant financial battles for the people who are least well positioned to fight those battles. We know the need for a cost-of-disability payment was identified over 20 years ago, in 2004, reaffirmed in the Indecon report in 2021 and promised again in the current programme for Government, but there is still no permanent disability payment, no delivery and no timeline. People have been left in the lurch waiting. Everyone's costs have risen but their costs, in particular, have risen and their incomes are falling.”
“Such care would ensure every person in a crisis gets timely invention in a setting that provides them with privacy and, dare I say it, basic human dignity.”
“People should not necessarily have to go to an emergency department to access emergency mental health services. Care could be community-based. If we had a nationwide network as part of the primary care centre system, people would not have to attend hospital emergency departments for many less complex medical procedures. That is another day's debate but community care is required. All of this will require proper resourcing and will not happen overnight. The Minister of State and previous speakers pointed to some areas of improvement. While improvements have happened, a lot more is needed within a shorter timeframe if the Government is to finally deliver the safe, rapid-access mental health emergency care promised in its policy report, Sharing the Vision, for the period from 2020 to 2030.”
“Professionals, families and other advocates have been very clear that the current model is simply not working. People in crisis are being assessed in totally unsuitable chaotic environments, where access to timely specialist care depends too heavily on where people happen to live. As such, I wholeheartedly support calls in this motion for a dedicated mental health emergency room service in every model 3 and model 4 hospital, separate from overcrowded emergency departments. I also support establishing an expert review of the role of model 2 hospitals and investment in a network of specialist crisis centres, including at community level. This is a fundamental point, both in terms in emergency departments in general but also in mental health services.”
“Last year's Mental Health Commission's report entitled, Acute Mental Healthcare in Hospital Emergency Departments in Ireland, confirmed, as other speakers noted, that emergency mental health care is simply not available in most of our emergency departments. I am repeating myself here but every year more than 50,000 people in acute mental distress present to emergency departments. A number of Deputies referred to this but it is important to emphasise it. What the report shows is widespread inconsistency in the quality of care people receive. Hospital managers acknowledge rising demand. The report highlighted, among other things, that eight emergency departments lacked even the most basic appropriate spaces for crisis mental health assessments.”
“However, overall, because Ukraine was invaded by Russia and because Russia is terrorising innocent people every single day of the year, they need weaponry for defence and offence in certain situations. That is something Europe as a whole needs to provide. We have given commitment for non-military assistance and long may that continue. Obviously, we want to see peace as quickly as possible.”
“I reiterate that I fully support the need to help our neighbours in Ukraine. This is part of an EU contribution. It does not alter Ireland's military neutrality or the triple lock. It is purely about enhanced financial co-operation under Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union, TEU. It is nothing to do with defence or security commitments and our neutrality has been respected by our EU partners before. Obviously, as others have raised in the Dáil, we may not like how some of our EU partners spend their money. That is a fair comment. I note one of the amendments tries to tie in and ring-fence the Irish contribution in terms of where it is spent, and I do believe we need more scrutiny in that regard.”
“It is current, it is not legacy and it needs to be looked at. Not following up on the process risks the perception of a State body represented at coroner inquests under agreement with the State Claims Agency being accused of deliberately attempting to avoid scrutiny and, in fact, working against the common good and the public interest. This needs follow-up. Will the Taoiseach or his office meet with Mr. McGinley to further pursue this? There are public interest issues that need to be addressed.”
“I thank the Taoiseach. Mr. McGinley's stated reason for seeking an unrestricted inquest scope is simple and is grounded in the wider public interest to save lives in the future, enable learning that could improve mental healthcare and treatment, strengthen diagnosis, ensure robust management of prescription medication, reinforce the need for co-parents to be informed and supported, and most importantly, ensure warning signs and risks to children are recognised before lives are lost. I do not believe there is a parent in the whole country who would accept an inquest being limited in its scope. Other, similar cases were not so limited. The role of the State Claims Agency in overseeing the HSE needs to be fully investigated. The role of the HSE in trying to limit this particular investigation has implications right now.”
“Families who lose loved ones in these horrific circumstances must be able to trust that every single relevant fact will be examined because transparency and accountability are about learning lessons and maybe, just maybe, that will save lives in the future.”
“Our Supreme Court has also been clear that coroners have a public duty to allay rumours or suspicion and to highlight circumstances which, if unaddressed, could lead to further deaths. I am, therefore, asking for a clear commitment today in the case from McGinley children. Further information must be brought into the public domain that may require widening the remit of coroners or require the Attorney General to reconfirm that such scope in the public interest already exists. It certainly requires an examination as to why the HSE sought to limit this inquest and whether that constitutes undue interference contrary to the public interest.”
“Barristers for the HSE argued that a full investigation would examine not only the treatment provided but also a "consideration and determination as to its adequacy". Yes, the Coroners Act does prevent a finding of civil or criminal liability but the legislation does not prevent the coroner from establishing plain facts, including whether protocols were followed, whether procedures failed or whether systemic gaps existed. Those factual findings are essential if we are serious about preventing more such tragedies. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, the State has a duty to conduct an effective investigation where systemic failures may have contributed to a death. That requires looking beyond the immediate medical causes to the wider circumstances.”
“Their father, Andrew McGinley, who is in the Gallery today, has fought tirelessly to have the full circumstances leading up to their deaths properly investigated. He sought detailed fact-finding processes at their inquest, including the examination of the treatment Ms Morley received in the two years before the children died. However, the coroner has limited the scope of the inquest. This followed correspondence with the HSE and from consultants in St. Patrick's Mental Health Services requesting such a limitation. I fully respect the independence of the Coroner’s Court but when the HSE asks for a limited scope, that request carries weight, and if the effect is to restrict the facts that can be examined, then the public is entitled to ask why.”
“We have seen too many tragic cases across the country where a parent or family member has taken the lives of their loved ones, including one in my constituency weeks ago. My thoughts are first and foremost with every family who has suffered such unimaginable loss and also, of course, the family of the late Grace Lynch. How the State handles these cases is a matter of public interest. There is one case in particular, again in my constituency, that demands answers. This week five years ago, three innocent children - Conor, aged 9, Darragh, aged 7, and Carla, just three years old - were killed by their mother, Deirdre Morley. She was later found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, a verdict that has left more questions than answers.”
“All the cars going from Dublin Airport directly to the west are clogging up the M50 and also the N4 in my constituency. There is synergy possible in this regard. Ireland West Airport could have more planes landing there for tourists who love to drive automatic electric cars.”
“I raised the issue of congestion in my constituency yesterday. I also attended a meeting of the tourism committee at which we discussed issues such as the new EU resolution that electric vehicles, EVs, will have to be introduced for car rental by 2030. There has been a little blowback on that. Dublin Airport does not have the capacity and it accounts for 80% of all car hires. There is some flexibility, though, in terms of Dublin Airport. Given that 38% of people who come into Dublin Airport and hire a car there go to the west, there is a lot of scope for Ireland West Airport in terms of providing grants to charge EVs there and having overnight charging facilities in the area. This is also valid from a congestion perspective.”
“Given our historic neutrality and our peacekeeping missions throughout the world, could Ireland continue this focus on conflicts in the Middle East, not only in Palestine, but also in countries like Iran and Sudan?”
“As the Tánaiste correctly said, this despotic regime funds terrorism and murder across the globe, including against our neighbours in Ukraine who have been subject to attacks by drones produced in Iran. I am conscious of the geopolitical context for any US Administration or Israeli attack. We have had lots of discussions about the occupied territories Bill and the genocide in Gaza and I have spoken on those, but Iran tends to get ignored in this context. The European Union needs to be careful about how we frame things. When the Cypriot ambassador was making a presentation to the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs yesterday, he pointed out the Middle East is one of Cyprus's priorities during its Presidency.”
“On a related note, I would also like to know what contacts, if any, the Irish Government has with opposition groups based in and outside Iran, including those who claim to be in a position to form a provisional government pending free and fair elections. Has the Irish Government called for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, unilaterally or in an EU context? The Iranian people I have met are a warm, friendly and inclusive bunch. They, unfortunately, followed one murderous dictatorship with another theocratic brutal regime. None of the elections held in recent years were free or fair in any way. In this context, it is important for the international community to take a stand.”
“I note that Ireland raises the issue of the death penalty privately and bilaterally in contacts with Iranian leaders and officials in Ireland and Iran, including in the last round of political consultations with representatives of the Iranian foreign ministry held in 2024. We also do so publicly and multilaterally and in the UN General Assembly Human Rights Council, but now it has gone to another level. In this context, it is good to see the European Parliament has a forthcoming plenary vote on a resolution concerning the repression of protesters in Iran. Will the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach be asking Irish MEPs to support this resolution? I also note that recently the accreditation ceremony for the new Iranian ambassador was postponed. Will it be postponed indefinitely, given the situation?”
“Last year saw a record number of executions and it looks like this number could be dwarfed this year, even with some of the recent postponements. This regime is brutal and, for example, recently took part in a raid of the Imam Khomeini Hospital, carried out by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, which answers directly to the Ayatollah. A nurse on site shared information that the IRGC beat patients who were wounded, staff and families with batons. The glass entrances were smashed and they stormed the wards with tear gas. Children in the paediatric wards also suffered intense beatings. This attack on the hospital is one example of a crime against humanity.”