Richard O'Donoghue
Limerick County · Independent Ireland · Ireland
“The crucial point is that the HSE environmental health service examined the matter, visited the community and requested a public health investigation into the complaints. The public health section denied it. One part of the health service was looking for an investigation but the Department's public health section denied it.”
“I have a copy of that investigation. The Tánaiste and I met CEPA a number of years ago and we discussed these complaints. The Taoiseach is on the record 13 years ago saying that there are health implications to wind farms. There is something that I want the Tánaiste and all other Members sitting around the House today to do.”
“I thank the Tánaiste. The issue here is the inconsistency. In the Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown area, all noise complaints received by the local authority are investigated by the HSE.”
“Today, I am raising the issue of wind farms and their health implications. A number of weeks ago, I was copied into a serious letter from the Communities and Environmental Protection Alliance, CEPA, to the Minister of Health. I am informed that there has been no response, not even an acknowledgement.”
“I would also like to have the Minister for Health there to meet these people and to see if we can relieve concerns and meet young people and their families' entitlement to a night's sleep. This cannot go on for more years. We have been talking about this for years. We must think of the health implications and how we can help.”
“It has been proven without doubt that there are health implications to wind turbines in certain areas. I am not against wind turbines in areas where they do not have health implications, but this one does. So, when the Tánaiste is giving his reply, I want him to think of the children and families this is affecting.”
The complete record
Every one of 585 lines we hold for Richard O'Donoghue, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“People are dying needlessly, while they are waiting for care. On the other side of that, people do not want to be employed by the hospital because of the stigma that was attached to it. Something radical needs to change. The management in place at the moment are trying to change it. They have been in contact with us in trying to change this but unless they get the proper staffing and proper people employed there, they cannot do that. It goes back to the question of how many more people have to die before the Government listens to people who can deliver infrastructure for it. I have been talking here about this, and I know the Minister has looked at certain parts of it. I will give him praise for what he does.”
“How many more people's lives will it take before the Government listens to businesspeople and lets them deliver the infrastructure and buildings for it? It can then invest in the healthcare that needs to go into these buildings. How many more people will die before we do that? We are at Christmastime. I was at a funeral during the week. One person turned around to me after she buried her mother and said, "Please, please, please Richard, if you do anything, will you please sort out UHL?". A new CEO is coming in place. I hope and pray they have the capability to bring people with them to get the adequate staff that hospital needs. There is one accident and emergency department for 45,000 people. Hospitals were downgraded without thinking of the impact of an increasing population. That is recklessness.”
“It could never be touched but now the Government wants it to go into something that is not based on training. We have a lot of very good projects that could be built. We talked about UHL today. I thank the Minister for saying that she is looking at options A and B, and all the sectors of it, but it is about the delivery of this. We are talking about 36 beds being delivered next year and it is hoped to increase that to 178 beds before 2030. The commercial sensitivity of getting extra lands is being talked about. We have also talked about developers saying they will build it on the same basis as a mortgage system, where they will build it, give it back, and it will cost a euro. If they do not have the funding to deliver it now, they will deliver the project within two years to help people save lives.”
“What it does is absorb the costs the sector has got in the past three years, and stops it increasing the price of food, beverages and everything within that sector. It was the right thing to do. I thank the Government for eventually doing it because, otherwise, it will be a circular economy. It will come back around to the same people who have got the wage increase paying more for the same product. We then look at every person who is paying PRSI and PAYE, who is also paying into the National Training Fund, but it does not actually go to funding national training. It goes around; it was voted on recently that it be used to buy up properties. It is taking from a fund for training people. That money has been sitting in accounts and building up for years.”
“When you break it down, take off the 1.5% auto-enrolment, which is also starting in January, and keep breaking it down, the person who will get the minimum wage increase is not getting an increase. What it does is drive inflation because people on the other side have to put up their costs. People asked me why the hospitality sector got a reduction in VAT. The hospitality sector is one of the cases where the minimum wage will come in. It will have four wage increases coming next January, in the short term. If you add that to the knock-on process of all the different wage increases across the sector, the 4% decrease it got will not add a cent to inflation. At the Committee on Budgetary Oversight that I chair, I asked people from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC, whether it would create an inflation cost; it would not.”
“A letter from Uisce Éireann to say it will now upgrade the system is all that is wanted for the local authority to give the go-ahead. It has been going around in circles for three months now. People want to start it for the betterment of the community. We talk about where our tax is going and the minimum wage. I have no problem with a wage increase but if it does not make a difference in the pockets of the people getting it, I do have a problem with it. We see today that the minimum wage of €13.50 will be increased to €14.15, which will give a person an increase of €26. It is not an increase of €26, however, because of the tax bands. When the USC charge was lowered, the Government never moved the tax bands, so that person will pay more tax on it.”
“Every time I come in here, I look across the benches and see where we cannot get delivery. I then look at communities where any time something is wanted or somebody is in trouble, people ask what they can do to help, even if they have not got it themselves. Yesterday, I was in Limerick. It is a tradition in Limerick that Fossett's Circus comes there. Fossett's Circus does a charity night, every time it comes to Limerick, for people just to go to see a circus. It offers a full night. It offered me tickets to give to agencies that want to go to see a circus. I go to different communities that offer the same but when it comes to governance, the same thing is not awarded. A crèche in Banogue is waiting for a letter from Uisce Éireann. The funding is there to build it to support the local school and local families who are working in the area.”
“Why not include them when they are now helping the Government to fix some of the problems that it faces today? Its own advisers, all the different chartered engineers and so on could not give the information in a timely fashion but it has it from the practical experiences from the 43 houses. The Minister should use that practical experience, should cover those 43 houses and should bring them into the same scheme. Deputies Ward and Ó Broin have been saying it. Everyone here has been saying it and people have been saying it in the right context, that everyone understands. The Minister and I know it is the right thing to do.”
“I believe he will look at this. When you work out what it will cost and based on what it is costing for all the houses to be repaired, it will not even come to 1%. For the sake of 43 houses that went early, as they were instructed to, and are now in a situation where they have a deficit because of inflationary costs, the right thing to do is include everyone. The people who entered the scheme early are the ones who started the whole system going, which showed the Government the faults in the system in the first place. Those people have highlighted it and the Government would not have tabled any of these amendments today except that those houses went first and now the Government has realised the problems that were there. They have given the Government the answer that it needs to fix the houses that are there at the moment.”
“In the scheme of things, when you look at projections of what this will cost, it will be 43 houses and roughly €22,000 per house. Given the different-sized houses, it is an average of €22,000 per house. Going by the 29 March deadline, there is a price increase which is between €16 and €20 per square foot, with the inflationary costs that have been caused by different things, including budgetary changes by the Government, the hike in fuel costs, transport costs, rising insulation costs and rising silicone costs. All the different oil-based materials for houses, through different budgets, have created an increase. We are asking for fairness for 43 houses. It is a pittance when looked at in the scheme of it. We are looking at 43 households which have been left behind. The Minister has an opportunity to fix this when it goes to the Seanad.”
“I know as a contractor that if you have to take down a semi-detached house, the bonding and insurance you will need to have on the second building in order to take down the first building will cost more. It has to cost more because it is a health and safety risk. Someone is being left in a health and safety risk situation. It also concerns the insurance of the person in the second half of the house. Will their insurance cover their house because somebody has removed half of the building and now they have tarpaulin on their end of it? Is their house insured? Under fire regulations or health and safety, is that house insured if a storm comes? That is what we are asking. If it is a semi-detached house, it should be treated as one building.”
“If one side is defective, the other side is defective. If it does not meet the threshold, it should be based on the building as a whole. That is where a small bit of common sense comes into it. We need to regulate properly for this. By allowing one house to come down, that could deteriorate the other house faster. I said this at the very start when the Government said the roof had to be kept if there was an existing house. It said that the outer walls should be removed. Then it wanted the outer walls to be replaced and connected to the existing blockwork, which could crumble down the line because it has been opened to the elements. It is a sign of madness. Why does the Government not listen to people in the business, who have solutions and common sense?”
“If you open it to the elements, you make the other house defective. If a house is built as a semi, it is one unit. It is built as a block. If it is a 15-block unit, it should be treated as one unit and all of it should be brought in together. What happens if one house is said to be defective? The proper way of doing any other house is to brace it in case you take away something that may have been supporting the house. You could create something that could put people's lives in danger. Is there anything in the Government regulations to say that if one side of a house is removed and the other side collapses and injures somebody, the Government is responsible? Common sense is not that common. If it is a semi-detached house, it is one unit. It was built as one unit and it should be treated as one unit.”
“Everyone one of the speakers is talking correctly. They have the experience. I have taken out the front of buildings with 300 or 400 tonnes of stone propped over the buildings. For a semi-detached house - it depends on the era it was built in - there could a 6 in. or 9 in. block wall in the middle separating them or there could be a stud wall built up between them with fire-lined boards on both sides. If you open and take down one property, because they were built as one unit, when one side is taken out that weakens the structure of the other side. If the roofs are cut roofs - the same ridge board runs across the top of the roofs - then the rafters are on the same wall plates, which means that if you disturb anything, you weaken it. If a house on one side is defective, the same bloody blocks are on the other side.”
“Where there are Government contracts, rising costs are built in. Therefore, why can this not be done for everyone else? I want the Minister to exempt the tax people are supposed to pay where there is 100% redress. This will go some way towards paying for the houses that need to be rebuilt.”
“Why does it not give people their payments based on the building as it goes on? If a person has to come up with a small bit of money, they can try to fundraise themselves. That, to me, is a solution. Why would the Minister charge tax on redress of 100%? Addressing this is within his remit. If I am pricing a project, it is based on a period of three months. How long is it going to take for the system to come into place and how long is it going to take for people to qualify? By the time the Minister moves the goalposts, prices will have gone up again. Is there not something to be said for index-linking based on the cost of prices going up now and on current inflation costs, as shown by economists? All of this is at the Minister’s fingertips. I have to cost daily, so why can the Minister not do so?”
“There are people who built their houses and got HomeBond and all these other certifications for their houses which are now falling down around them and the quarries that caused the problem are putting up their prices under an umbrella group. People trying to build houses are getting a 5% levy on all concrete products and everyone in the country building today is paying for the mistakes that were not regulated at the time. For somebody getting their house costed at the moment, based on today's prices, the VAT could help that burden. That is a solution for part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the Government is paying this as 100% redress, as the Minister said. Why does it not fund the people and give bank guarantees to them in the same way as for anyone building a new house today?”
“People would then not have to try to raise €200,000, €300,000 or €400,000 to rebuild a house or pay the VAT rate. Based on 2025 costings, taking in the remedial work that has to be done outside of the scope of works, the VAT is probably €70,000 based on a 2,000 sq. ft house. That €70,000 could go towards the rebuilding of their house if they get the costings. That would go some way to addressing inflation of costs. There is a 5% levy on all concrete products that was brought in. The same companies that were the problem announced an 8% increase this month. I am told it is coming in from 1 January. That same company in the past two years has given a 34% increase on all concrete products and the Government is charging a 5% levy on top of that. When will a regulation be put in place to tackle the elephant in the room?”
“I have been talking about greenfield sties. We now have to look at dismantling houses and getting rid of the material environmentally and with the proper certification. The costs are astronomical. Another €20 or €30 per sq. ft can be added to that and that is based on 2024 prices. We are talking about people who are short of money. A small thing that could go towards it, for the costing of the house, would be a VAT exemption. Why not? Based on 2024 prices, that would give them an extra €54,000 on a house towards the money they cannot raise. The Government could also, based on the Government doing its own contracts, fund it itself. The Government is going to give them the money in the first place, so why not fund it itself based on the engineers' reports?”
“If someone takes on a Government contract tomorrow morning, built into that contract, if the project goes over due to inflation over a certain percentage, is the adding on to the contract once the engineers can prove the material has moved. I said this in the Dáil last week and read out the letter, and it is ironic, that the same umbrella group from which the concrete products came - some, not all of its companies - sent a message through all their companies around Ireland that there would be an 8% increase in concrete products across the board. It was not one company saying it, it was the umbrella group sending it out through all its companies and the Government announced a 10% increase in the building. It has come out with 8% on concrete products alone. That is on top of what I am talking about here.”
“As other speakers said, this has not been costed since 2022. I will give the Minister a small few facts and it will not cost the State anything. I know the funds myself on a year-to-year basis for building costs. In 2021, the average cost of building a 2,000 sq. ft house was €120 per sq. ft on a greenfield site with a builder's finish. It cost €240,000 in 2021 with VAT of €32,400 on top that. In 2023, it was €180 per sq. ft. The same house went from €240,000 to €360,000 and the VAT was €48,600. In 2024, it was up to €200 per sq. ft - the same house with nothing extra. It cost €400,000 in 2024 and €54,000 VAT.”
“Yet the Minister is able to say under those amendments that 1990 standards can be certified with 2025 standards. What has been made excessively clear tonight is that the Government will give the guarantee and take responsibility if there is a breakdown afterwards in the two different contexts of materials from the different eras.”
“He is not taking out one completely and replacing it but actually connecting to it. How can he regulate around that and give guarantees to homeowners that they can remove the outer part of their house, leave the inner part, support the house, connect new blockwork, which is of 2025 standard, to 1990 standard blockwork, and get somebody to certify it? I do not think it can be done. Is the Government going to give a guarantee that it can be certified? If there is an issue afterwards, will the Government take liability for the mess it is now making? The Minister talked about building regulations and building standards. They are upgraded every year. Even from the point of view of hospitals being built, if they go to 1 January of the following year, the regulations can change and they would have to start all over again.”
“I listened to the Minister speak on the amendments. He referred to the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2025. What the Minister is saying is that for a house built in the 1990s, a section can be put on that house connecting the 1990 blockwork to the 2025 blockwork. Who is going to certify it? I deal with engineers daily. For certification of anything that I need, I would have to get all the different certificates right down to the nails that are used. Everything has to be shown to be job specific. Given the Minister referred to 1990 to 2025, he is now connecting the basis of what is allowed for houses, whereby some part of the house will be removed and the internal structure will be left as it was. How are they going to be joined? The Minister is joining 1990s standards to 2025 standards.”
“For every building material that may be used in a house, it is the same stone. The only thing that is different is the plastering, which is a sandstone. That is the difference. Everything else would be based off the different types of stone that are in the quarries. What I am trying to say to the Minister is that the amendment before the House seeks to remove "Blocks" only. If we were to interpret it through any law in the country, if a stone is a 6 mm chip, a 10 mm chip or a 20 mm chip, it is the same stone. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It is simple science. Why not listen to people who understand what they are talking about? These hands are rough enough from using it for many years. I understand it. I am asking Members to understand the same. It cannot be put down just as one product.”
“I will follow on from Deputies Ward and Ó Broin as regards where the regulation is based on block. As I said earlier, I have been a building contractor all my life. The same grit goes into block as goes into lintels, only it is a different sized chip. Lintels were 8 in. by 4 in., but now they are a regulated 8 in. by 8 in. even though it is the same material. It is just certified differently. It just uses a different sized chip, but it is the same stone. What goes into foundations also goes into the subfloor, the finished floor and the block work. It is the same stone. About the particles, the Minister might say that it covers the block only, but it is like baking a cake, using flour in one cake and saying that it is only down to that particular flour in that particular cake. It is the same flour.”
“When we rebuild houses, we build them to today's standards, the same way as we do under insurance regulations which state that if a house goes on fire it has to be built to today's standards. The Bill does not allow for that. Unless we include something for the future, it is a waste of time. I am a block layer. I have been in building all my life. I will be on a site sometime tomorrow to check work. I work with very competent structural engineers on a daily basis. They know what to do, but are not qualified to sign off on a house.”
“I have been in construction all my life and the manner in which the Bill is laid out is not practical. The Government has made proposals in respect of sectors A, B and C. There is reference to repairing a wall, moving onto the next one and so on. That is specialised work. Specialised work is more expensive. Reference has been made to foundations. The criteria for foundations have completely changed. They are now required to be three times the width of the wall as standard. Standard foundations for a standard house are 1 m wide. We do not want to build something new on top of something old. The criteria for roofing is now completely different, with different weight loads. If a house went on fire tomorrow, it would have to be rebuilt to today's standards, not those of the 1980s, 1990s or 2000s.”
“We need to examine the tools we can work with, namely parents, children, the Government and legislation. That is what we need to do. All of the parts need to work together. We need to work together to make sure that our children and parents are protected into the future.”
“They came from Cork, Limerick, Spain and Ukraine. I asked them how they look at social media. They told me sometimes they cannot tell whether things are real. Banning something for those aged up to 16 is not the answer. We need regulation. We also need accountability from parents. How many parents hand their children phones at eight years of age? The responsibility should not be on governance. That is part of it, but the responsibility comes back to parents giving children devices to keep them quiet rather than doing things that are normal. Parents allow children to look online at whatever they like. Parents need to take responsibility. Certain sites should not be allowed because people can go online by giving false information. AI generated content can state people are different and then they can get online.”
“While we are talking, our phones are listening. In the next five minutes, whatever we have spoken about will pop up on our phones. We not only have to deal with children; we also have to deal with adults. What happens online is getting into all of our thoughts. If we look up anything, we will be sent four or five things based on that. If what happens online does that to adults, what is it doing to children? People who sign up to online outlets are sent images of people who are self harming and so on. People are also sent images that are not true at all. People are shown doing things that they are not doing, images which are AI generated. Now we do not even know whether we are looking at something that is real. Transition year students from St. Mary's in Charleville visited the Houses today.”
“The biggest issue with welfare is to make sure all the laws are implemented and things are done properly for the welfare of the animal. This is what we need to do. The biggest thing is to give resources for enforcement. We can make all the laws in the world but if we do not enforce them, things do not happen.”
“I come from a family where my parents had respect and said dogs had to be walked and fed and that the welfare of the dog was to be looked after. I will stick with greyhounds. In the Banogue and Croom area, Moloney's have a place where dogs are brought after racing to be rehomed. It is an amazing place to visit where everything is done properly. Have I seen places where people are doing wrong? Yes, I have. Have I raised issues with this? Yes, I have. People treating the welfare of their animals correctly and looking after dogs as if they were one of their own also need to see an incentive for doing things right. The biggest issue I see with animal welfare is enforcement. Nobody wants to see an animal being mistreated.”
“We have a large majority of dog breeders who do their work well and do it right. They are legislated for and they have regular visits from vets and regular welfare visits and they do everything correctly. We have a minority who are not doing it right. Any minority that is not doing it right deserves the heavy hand of the law. The Bill needs to be right once and for all but the biggest issue with introducing any Bill in the House is enforcement. The last Bill on this matter brought to the House was in 2012 and it has never been enforced properly. The resources for enforcing animal welfare have never been provided. I come from an area of greyhound breeding, greyhound racing, horse racing and everything.”
“All the families want it to deliver it. Talk is cheap. It is about assessment of need. If somebody cannot do that within the remit of their own work and the guidelines set down around it, they should be moved out and someone who will actually do it should be got in. There are lots of people who will work with the Government to get the assessment of need but the bureaucratic bull that is put in the way of doing this is what is stopping a lot of assessments of need.”
“A child cannot get home school tuition, an ASD Ireland parking permit or an assistance dog in some charities without an assessment. Not having an assessment blocks everything. That is the problem. The assessments need to be done; six months is too long. The Government has tried to make an amendment to this and make improvements; I welcome it. However, by agreeing to something, it does not mean the Government is going to do it. It needs to be carried out and we need accountability. Cara was able to tell the Government that since the last assessment was done, the list has increased. From the last promises it said it would meet, the list has increased. The Government says it is going to do something, but the proof will be in the pudding when the delivery is done. I want the Government to deliver it. Cara wants it to deliver it.”
“Assessment of need. I will just read it out. Assessment of need. Cara, who is 15 years of age, can see that there has to be an assessment of need. A 15-year-old girl has been outspoken, supported by her family to support her family. She will be sleeping outside for 50 hours to highlight something that is not there, which we in here should be ashamed of. That is what it comes to. I will read out something relating to a person in my own area. He now has it in writing in his private psychological report, which cost €1,200, that he needs a special class or special school so he will be ready for when the NCSE portal opens in January for the September 2027 intake. He would not be ready if he was waiting for a public assessment.”
“That is where the problem lies. We gave away our sovereignty to somebody else to make decisions for us. We can now see where that is getting us. We send out people to Europe and they act like Noddy film characters from years ago, nodding up and down and saying, "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir". They are not representing this country. They are not representing rural Ireland or the farmers in this country. Why does the Government think so many people have left agriculture? It is because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael forced them out with regulations that were not made here but in Europe. We have the finest beef, milk and grass-fed cows in the world and the Government has closed that down. In this case, I will not vote for the legislation to be amended and I will stand with the people of Ireland to make sure that that does not happen.”
“We saw what happens when we take away the ability of our local authorities to deal with planning laws and that power was given to the likes of this House. The power was taken from parties in local authorities to make decisions for counties where people were elected. The Government now wants to take power away from TDs in this House to enact Irish law. We saw what happened with Mercosur. Ciarán Mullooly MEP, from Independent Ireland, fought to make sure that rural Ireland was protected. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which told farmers they were looking after them, made statements last week to say they were in favour of it. There is now a three-year extension. Does the Government not realise that the people in this country have their own voice? We have our own laws. The Government is supposed to be the protector of this country.”
“We are asked to vote to amend the Arbitration Act to ratify the investors court part of CETA. I am asking the TDs to stand with the people and with the Dáil's ability to make laws for Ireland and to vote against amending the Arbitration Act. We already have Irish and EU laws that protect companies and investors, and if these laws are good enough for the rest of us, including Irish businesses, it should be good enough for Canada and corporations. Ratifying CETA will remove the ability of Deputies to enact laws for the public good. It means that the laws to improve working conditions and pay, regulate energy prices or improve health and safety standards can be voted on by Canada's corporations in a secret court whose decision cannot be challenged.”
“They can go to a catalogue, pick out the house and they can deliver it cheaper because it is out of a catalogue. It is the same; you pick this house, this house, this house. That is why it is delivery on budget and on time.”
“The only way we are going to see ourselves out of a housing crisis is a business model. Accountability for building on budget and on time is the only way. I am in business all my life. I have said it here that I do not do any Government contracts and never have, but I am building all my life and I am accountable for the work we do, for the people who work with me and for their families, and to make sure at the end of the year that the business lasts into the following year. This model is the only way we are going to get out of a housing crisis. It is developer-led infrastructure where the business model is used against our departmental models to show what we can deliver, even on systems where we can come up with a system for even hospital building. Somebody rang me today to say they are getting a house built by Murphy's New Homes.”
“I said to the Minister earlier that I would pray if somebody would start to listen and I am going to give him a small bit of prayers. This is from the point of view of the part in the Bill that brings in developer-led infrastructure. Why am I so glad that is going to be introduced and that Government is looking at and encouraging this? I will tell you why. When you bring a business model into a development, you can then use the costing of that delivery of infrastructure and put it against the likes of Uisce Éireann and what it is delivering. It creates a competition network where you can actually see how much it is costing, how much it can be delivered for, and look at the likes of Uisce Éireann and ask why it is costing more for it to develop something that is the same. That is what I welcome.”
“I am delighted that the Government is now taking the advice of an Independent who is giving it the roadmap so it can deliver infrastructure, on budget and on time. I am delighted that the Deputies are speaking from my book. They might bring this to their parties and drive it home. I will provide the rocket they are looking for, and as Deputy Crowe said, he can light it but he would want to light it under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael first.”
“They will go home and tell their constituents that they spoke up for them today. However, they did not listen for five or six years to the people with experience who could have helped to address the problem. As I have said, I will give them praise all day, every day, if they deliver what we have asked.”
“I have been saying it for six years and it has only taken six years for the Government parties to listen because I can bring it on budget and on time. I am delighted Deputy Dolan is representing Fianna Fáil but he is also representing the mistakes of it not listening to us. That is coming from a person who was a member of the party.”
“It is a breath of fresh air when I hear that people over there agree to something I suggested five years ago. One Member said he is a young person representing Fianna Fáil representing that generation. I have four sons. I started out in Fianna Fáil, until it tried to put me in cotton wool and would not let me speak. The Deputy is part of the Government that is part of the problem because it did not listen. It is now listening, after listening to people with experience. I am in construction all my life. We know how to deliver on budget and on time, otherwise I would not be in business. I am looking forward to us being able to deliver, now that the Government is finally listening on developer-led infrastructure.”
“Let us hope that every child in this country has been bold so that Santy might bring their parents and grandparents, who cannot avail of the grants previously provided by the Government, a bit of coal this Christmas to keep them warm.”
“However, I read out a letter yesterday showing that all of the manufacturers have put up their prices by 8%. The Government is a year behind. I am in construction. The Department is looking at the SEAI grants and retrofitting houses. It takes so long for it to process people's applications that the costs have gone up by 30%. That is what is wrong. The bureaucratic bull that people have to go through to get a grant in the first place takes so long that the inflationary costs have already caught up to it and it is not affordable any more. That is what is wrong. The Government needs to speed the process up and get the funding out to people straight away to make sure that it helps.”
“Christmas is approaching. When we were growing up, we were told by our parents that if we were not good for Christmas, Santy would fill our stockings with coal. How many people in this country this year will be hoping that Santy brings them a bag of coal? How many? Have we not turned full circle? It is not that long ago that we heard it. We will now see people go cold in their houses this year. I have been trying to figure out what is wrong. The Government has run out of ideas. The Minister's Department has absolutely run out of ideas. All it can look at is how it can get in a marginal tax from inflatable costs. It cannot fix the problems. Why? It looks at energy rates. For example, the Government announced that it is giving an extra 10% for costs relating to buildings with pyrite.”