Roderic O'Gorman
Dublin West · Green Party · Ireland
“These are men and women who served their working lives within the British civil service system but who, following unification, would be drawing their pensions in a united Ireland. The question of the funding of that will be extremely significant in any talks following a "Yes" vote on both parts of the island.”
“Some 100 extra staff have been hired to the public domain team to tackle waste and dumping and our councillors will continue to fight for a cleaner and greener Dublin.”
“These challenges are magnified by the continued failure of the current political institutions in Northern Ireland to operate for the best interests of the people rather than achieving best political advantage for the parties.”
“In the Dublin Central area, an average of 50 tonnes per month of illegally dumped waste is being removed by the council. It is a huge amount of waste, and this is more than is collected in an entire year from whole counties elsewhere in the country. Our current model of waste management is a direct contributor to this.”
“This means that in many areas, bags are the notional solution but these cause issues with seagulls or foxes or are intermingled with illegally dumped bags. The net result is our footpaths are strewn with waste. Dublin City Council recently rolled out a system of waste compactors in the core areas of the city centre.”
“The solution is to rationalise the current system, put local authorities back at the centre of waste management processes and use this to get a better handle on pricing and illegal dumping through contracts that are right for each specific area, instead of the one-size-fits-all model we have at the moment that is not actually working anyw…”
The complete record
Every one of 975 lines we hold for Roderic O'Gorman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 20.
“I know Leinster House does not shut down for the next two months but I hope the pace will be a little less onerous and people are able to get a break.”
“A single provider would, I hope, allow local authorities to apply downward pressure on prices and keep them consistent for the duration of a multi-year contract with that particular waste provider. I again thank Deputy Sherlock for bringing forward the proposed changes outlined in the Bill. We know this does not end here. A lot more work needs to be done to deliver a system that is simpler for users, incentivises and helps a greater volume of recycling and waste recovery and will ultimately lead to a greener environment for all our communities, both urban and rural. On a final note, a Cheann Comhairle, I give my thanks to you, all the staff in Leinster House and all the ushers and caterers for their work over this term.”
“I know from my own area how many times residents have raised issues of seemingly arbitrary price increases and extremely opaque pricing structures implemented by the large waste companies. Many have also pointed to the illusion of choice in the current system, where multiple providers are all essentially providing the exact same service at the exact same price and are increasing prices in lockstep. It ends up conferring no benefits on households at all. These costs then end up disproportionately impacting families who are already struggling to make ends meet. Having children under the age of three adds to bin costs. Often, elderly families or a family with a member who has a disability have additional waste costs that all add up.”
“This means that in many areas, bags are the notional solution but these cause issues with seagulls or foxes or are intermingled with illegally dumped bags. The net result is our footpaths are strewn with waste. Dublin City Council recently rolled out a system of waste compactors in the core areas of the city centre. These seem to have been working well and it is actually similar to what is seen in a lot of cities across the Continent. Such a system could work here and would avoid people having to store bins in their homes, which I know is a significant concern for residents in areas like Stoneybatter and Smithfield. It was something I heard about a lot during the recent by-election campaign. One of the biggest criticisms of the current privatised system has to be how ineffective it has been on keeping waste costs down.”
“In the Dublin Central area, an average of 50 tonnes per month of illegally dumped waste is being removed by the council. It is a huge amount of waste, and this is more than is collected in an entire year from whole counties elsewhere in the country. Our current model of waste management is a direct contributor to this. The status quo is simply leaving Dublin communities to suffer and it is clear again that while the one-size-fits-all approach that is applied to waste collection in our country might suit some of the suburban areas, it absolutely does not suit our city centre communities. Waste is often an affordability issue as well. Not all households, particularly those in urban areas, have suitable spaces for storing wheelie bins. They have no outside spaces and, of course, they are not allowed keep them on the footpaths.”
“It just seems there is no urgency behind the recommendations of the task force anymore and instead of trying to deliver it, the Government is spending time looking for a political excuse and someone else to blame for why it has done nothing. It is important to understand that a waste system that works everywhere in the country does not work in the inner city. This is due to several factors, including short-term tenancies, a high number of tourist lettings, flats, apartments, terraced houses and an overall lack of storage space provided for wheelie bins. Despite it being mandatory for households to be able to separate their organic waste, this remains practically impossible for a significant proportion of inner-city homes, as wheelie bins cannot be stored in flats or terraced homes.”
“Importantly, that research examined best-practice examples in other cities, where each example has limitations and the approach of privatised municipal providers for Dublin has clearly failed the city, its resident and visitors. Too often, waste issues are characterised as a behavioural issue rather than recognising a poorly designed system that makes this system inevitable. Dubliners deserve a better answer than being blamed personally for the system's failure. A single waste provider for the whole of Dublin city was recommended in the past 18 months by the Taoiseach's Dublin city task force report. A report is due to be provided by the Department investigating the feasibility of this. However, as with so many of the report's recommendations, that has yet to materialise.”
“Some 100 extra staff have been hired to the public domain team to tackle waste and dumping and our councillors will continue to fight for a cleaner and greener Dublin. My colleague Councillor Janet Horner and our former Green Party TD Neasa Hourigan drafted a landlord waste contract Bill in 2024 to make it the landlord's responsibility to ensure that tenants have a waste contract in place. It is really positive to see that aspects of that Bill are included in the Bill that Deputy Sherlock has introduced. Councillor Horner succeeded in passing a motion in 2024 declaring a litter and dumping emergency in the inner city, and this was followed by a detailed position paper on what the future of waste management in the city might look like, several elements of which are reflected in the Bill. Again, that is something I really welcome.”
“Under the current system, it is not uncommon to see several bin lorries from different companies driving down the exact same residential street on different days of the week. Under a single permit model, we would have rationalised routes that access all homes at the same time. This clearly does not make sense from either a cost or admissions perspective. It would be remiss of me not to specifically reference Dublin as I know the issues this Bill addresses are in some ways most acute in certain parts of our city. My colleagues on Dublin City Council have been doing positive work in this space. Green Party councillors in Dublin have founded and led on the litter and waste committees for the city and on funding additional resources.”
“The solution is to rationalise the current system, put local authorities back at the centre of waste management processes and use this to get a better handle on pricing and illegal dumping through contracts that are right for each specific area, instead of the one-size-fits-all model we have at the moment that is not actually working anywhere. The second part of this legislation, which would place a direct duty on landlords to ensure an adequate waste collection service for their tenants, is really important. This mirrors draft legislation that my colleague Councillor Janet Horner was involved with in 2024, which would have significantly helped with illegal dumping in urban areas. This Bill also tackles significant inefficiencies that emerge under the current competition within the market model.”
“I thank Deputy Sherlock for drafting and bringing forward this legislation. The Green Party has long pushed for household waste collection to be brought back under public control. This proposal is a good example of how we might do this without maybe opting for full remunicipalisation and the risks that could entail in respect of the burden it could place on local authorities. Waste collection needs to be seen as a public service that needs to be fully integrated into our circular economy frameworks. This Bill would create a situation where we can retain an element of competition but it would be for a market rather than within a market. That would avoid a lot of the inefficiencies and risks we in the current model.”
“I, my colleague Senator Malcolm Noonan and others have raised that issue. This is just one example of the shared environmental and climate challenges across our island. Initial co-operation and, subsequently, all-island action can have real benefits. I have touched on a very small number of the fiscal challenges and questions to which the possibility of unification would give rise. It is as valuable to discuss those issues as it is necessary to discuss the constitutional questions, because the question of unity goes beyond votes, parties and institutions. A united Ireland must be about raising living standards and providing equal opportunities for everybody across the island and doing that while protecting and enhancing the natural environment for everyone living on our island.”
“These are men and women who served their working lives within the British civil service system but who, following unification, would be drawing their pensions in a united Ireland. The question of the funding of that will be extremely significant in any talks following a "Yes" vote on both parts of the island. As the leader of the Green Party, I see our island as a common biosphere. The challenges to our environment and biodiversity and our need to achieve climate reduction targets are shared. I think of the work my colleagues in Green Party Northern Ireland are doing to highlight the devastating pollution of Lough Neagh, our island's largest lake, where algal blooms are causing lasting damage to biodiversity. Something similar is happening at Lady's Island Lake in Wexford. A number of steps are finally being taken, which I welcome.”
“Rates of poverty across Northern Ireland are significantly higher than the rates here, and that has resulting impacts on life expectancy and physical and mental health. We know that Northern Ireland has not kept pace with the level of investment in education and skills that we have witnessed in the Republic. This has led to a significant divergence in skills and has left Northern Ireland in a position now whereby its productivity is similar to where it was as far back as 1998. A number of Deputies have already mentioned that in view of the high proportion of public service employment across Northern Ireland, the question of liability as to the pensions for former Northern Ireland civil servants is significant.”
“If it is enacted and implemented, it will allow more households in Northern Ireland to enjoy the benefit of cheaper renewable energy and also help the region to move towards achieving its emission reduction targets. Infrastructural investment is also much needed in the context of housing. Some 32,000 households are currently experiencing homelessness in Northern Ireland. The housing crisis there has been exacerbated by the failures of the Executive to reach social housing targets and by too regular cuts in its housing budget. Just as there is a major question regarding capital investment, a significant increase in current investment will be needed to deal with the many endemic social challenges that would be faced in the context of a united Ireland.”
“They absolutely have been important. Some boutique projects have been partly funded by the State and that is certainly something I welcome. We must recognise that those are just initial forays and are not of the scale that is needed. That scale remains huge. Just one area where that is highlighted is the all-Ireland rail review, which was published approximately two years ago. That review shows the scale of investment needed in just one area. However, it also demonstrates the benefits that could emerge on an all-island basis if its recommendations were to be implemented. I welcome the recent public publication of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill by the economy minister in the Executive.”
“These challenges are magnified by the continued failure of the current political institutions in Northern Ireland to operate for the best interests of the people rather than achieving best political advantage for the parties. We have to be conscious of the major capital investment that will be needed in a united Ireland to improve infrastructure across Northern Ireland. The region has lagged behind in infrastructure and development. We must recognise that a part of that was because a significant portion of the capital investment in Northern Ireland was purely on security infrastructure and not on the long-term infrastructural needs of the population. The approach to capital investment has to be supercharged. A number of Deputies, particularly on the Government side, mentioned the shared island unit and the shared island fund.”
“It has been useful to have this series of debates about the possibility of unification and its implications for all parts of the island in the context of the discussion and debate of the Sinn Féin Green Paper last week and the debate we are having now. These dialogues are important as they allow us to discuss the real opportunities that unification can create. They allow us to also be honest about the challenges that will emerge from unification and to be realistic about the significant political distance that still has to be travelled before this becomes an immediate political question. As a party that organises on an-all island basis, the Green Party is acutely aware of the economic and social challenges faced by the population of Northern Ireland.”
“I ask the Tánaiste to ask the Minister for Transport to bring forward the plan for the Luas green line extension to Tyrrelstown to complement the delivery of these new homes. I am sure Deputy Currie will support my proposal.”
“Fingal County Council is currently doing a consultation on a plan to build a new suburb for Dublin at Dunsink. The proposal is for up to 18,000 new homes, most of which will be built on State-owned land, which will I hope will mean more affordable prices. Fingal County Council plans to build the first 2,500 by 2029. Central to the success of this project is new public transport, with an extension of the Luas green line from Broombridge out as far as Tyrrelstown, which would see three new stops across the Dunsink lands. Right now, under the Dublin transport plan, the Luas green line extension is not due until after 2042, which is far too late. The new community will not work without high-quality public transport being delivered.”
“There is another point that we should bear in mind when we listen to the media. We know that this is an ongoing war and in recent months it has appeared in some elements that Ukraine is doing better, but Ukraine is still a dangerous place for civilians. About 250 civilians were killed in the month of April, with more than 1,000 injured. Ukraine is still a dangerous place and it is not easy for people to bring themselves, vulnerable family members and children back to what is still a war zone. For this reason, at a time when we have a system that works and we are cutting away another part of our State support through direct State accommodation, it is wrong to bring this proposal forward and I will oppose it on behalf of the Green Party.”
“It is also effective in promoting integration. The whole idea of the hosting model has enabled Ukrainians living with Irish families to get a better sense of Ireland and be better linked to education, job opportunities, community and sport. It has, as Deputy Murphy has said, kept Ukrainians out of the international protection system. I have argued throughout the time Ukrainians have been here that it would be a huge mistake to direct Ukrainians to the international protection system, which we all know is already under huge strain, because it could not cope with the numbers that would be affected. There is national support for the ARP. The most recent polling done earlier this year showed 68% or 67% of Irish people still agreed with supporting Ukrainians through it.”
“There is a case for tapering but my concern is about making the changes to the accommodation recognition payment to make it less attractive while at the same time ending the remaining State-provided hotel accommodation. We have the cumulation of these two changes at a time when we know there are already wide pressures across the private rental accommodation. It is this combination I am particularly concerned about. We know that the ARP works. It supports 41,000 of the Ukrainians living in our country, which is about 50% of them. It works with regard to the central goal of providing accommodation to those who need it. It works by providing this accommodation at a far more reasonable price. It is about €11 per night for a Ukrainian supported using the ARP versus €48 for those using full State accommodation.”
“Our relationship with Ukraine is becoming increasingly hot and cold. Government spokespeople continue the line about the country standing resolutely behind Ukraine, yet it looks like we are selling alumina to the Russian war machine. During his recent visit, I was worried that certain Ministers had been physically attached to President Zelenskyy, they were standing so close to him in the pictures, yet we are offering Ukraine our best broken-down armoured cars. Now we have a situation whereby we are systematically cutting the supports for Ukrainian civilians living here. This is not to say our level of support should not taper.”
“In the decision it is about to make on new rules for e-scooters, the Government should keep in mind the position of thousands of adults who use e-scooters responsibly, who need them for their commute and who should not be punished because of the dangerous behaviour of some individuals.”
“There has been rightful focus on road safety over the past week in the context of discussions on illegal use of scrambler bikes and the dangerous use of e-scooters. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, are due to make significant decisions about new laws soon. The Road Safety Authority estimates that about 5% of the adult population uses e-scoters. That is tens of thousands who use these devices, mainly as part of the work commute. We have rightly focused on the bad and dangerous behaviour that is out there, but there are plenty of people who are law abiding and who do their best to drive safely. They use e-scooters because they are more convenient and are cheaper to run in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.”
“There also needs to be serious investment in the grant scheme relating to ICT infrastructure, with a view to ultimately making these devices free for families. This is only one issue we need to address in terms of child poverty and school costs. There are many more. We need additional child benefit, we need to increase the back-to-school allowance to deal with rising uniform costs and we need to boost funding for the school meals scheme in order to maximise quality and nutrition as well.”
“One parent was in touch with me recently to outline how more than half of her back-to-school costs for this year relate to a mandatory laptop that is going to cost over €700. Parents have been told by the school in question that these laptops will only be used for five years, which will necessitate another expensive purchase for leaving certificate year. Aside from the cost factor, there is the clear issue of creating additional waste through ICT equipment that cannot be passed on to new students. There is an expanding frontier of cost increases that the Government has not really got to grips with. The Minister for education needs to give clear and firm guidance around what is and is not acceptable in terms of placing ICT cost demands on parents.”
“I thank Deputy Kenny for bringing forward this really important motion, which addresses many of the concerns parents in my constituency are raising with me regarding the increasing back-to-school costs they face each year. I want to hone in on one of the biggest issues with school costs, which is the cost of increasingly mandatory ICT equipment for students. Something I was really pleased to see during the term of office of the previous Government was the roll-out of free schoolbooks. That made a big difference for a lot of families. However, the increasing frequency with which laptops and tablets are being made mandatory for students is seriously undermining that progress. In many cases, the cost of ICT equipment is ending up being greater than the cost of schoolbooks ever was.”
“I ask the Minister of State to bring this to the Department of Finance and her Government colleagues because we are losing people from the tax saver scheme at a dramatic rate and we have to do something dramatic to halt that.”
“As the Minister of State discussed earlier, it could be achieved through a digital wallet that allows commuters to assign a certain portion of their gross pre-tax income each month, which they could then use to purchase passes for different transport services on a flexible basis, depending on what modalities they needed and what particular days they need it for. It would require some additional digital infrastructure and planning, but it would achieve a lot of flexibility that the current system does not achieve. That is why I am proposing a pilot programme. I am not suggesting that we roll it out immediately, but a pilot programme would be the perfect way to explore how this might function and test the system before we undertake a full roll-out.”
“I think we can all agree that commuting patterns have changed a lot since the Covid-19 pandemic and that idea of the rigid, five-day, ten-journey commute along the same route every day has disappeared for many workers. The tax saver scheme needs to change to reflect that new reality. Commuters want something that is more flexible, to reflect the fact that they are commuting in less regular patterns, but also to reflect the increased desire for multi-modal journeys. The idea of a flexible tax saver ticket that includes shared mobility is one that is worth exploring for these reasons. In the context of the forthcoming budget, I ask that the Department of Finance seriously look at reviewing the scheme and design a pilot programme to see how this type of flexible ticket might work in practice.”
“As a first step, I ask that the Minister for Finance directs officials in his Department to undertake a review of the tax saver scheme.”
“It works best for people with fixed travel patterns and convenient access to traditional public transport, but we know that nowadays many workers split time between working from home and the workplace, and they rely on a combination of transport options to complete their journey. However, the tax saver scheme completely excludes shared bikes, car share services and other sustainable transport models, and it is not providing the incentive for a genuinely multi-modal travel model. It also remains very much focused on Dublin transport patterns. If we are serious about encouraging sustainable travel, the tax saver scheme must evolve. It needs to become more flexible, more inclusive and more reflective of how people travel today.”
“Last year, the national policy statement on shared mobility policy referenced the potential of introducing a shared mobility voucher but I understand the sector has recently been told that the option of a voucher is now off the table. If this is the case, there is another practical and achievable solution, and that is modernising the existing tax saver scheme. Quite simply, the existing tax saver model is no longer meeting the needs of today’s commuters. Participation has fallen dramatically. In 2019, there were about 60,000 users and that has fallen to 25,000 today. While initiatives like the 90-minute fare in Dublin have undoubtedly played a role, they do not fully explain this decline. The reality is that the tax saver model is built around an outdated model of commuting.”
“It highlights the OECD findings that shared mobility has enormous potential to reduce carbon emissions and support more sustainable travel, an ambition that we all support. However, the potential will only be realised if the sector receives the policy support that it needs. There are businesses operating on low-margin, high-cost models. We have already seen providers like TIER & Dott withdraw bike sharing services from Irish towns and cities, including Limerick and Navan, while Driveyou exited the Dublin car share market. If we fail to act, we risk further market failure and losing services that are essential to a more sustainable transport network.”
“For many commuters, shared mobility provides that vital last-mile connection between the bus stop or train station and their home or work. For others, it offers a full-on, sustainable alternative to owning a private car for journeys that would otherwise have to be made by car. The potential is significant. Commercial bike sharing services last year delivered more than 600,000 journeys, while car sharing services facilitated over 500,000 journeys last year. These numbers are expected to grow substantially, with estimates suggesting that expanding car sharing alone could take demand for 300,000 private cars off our roads completely. The national policy statement on shared mobility was published last year.”
“I want to raise the issue of reforming the existing tax saver commuter ticket to include shared mobility services and to recognise new work patterns like working from home, as has been proposed by several service providers. As the Minister of State knows, shared mobility is shared bikes, e-bikes and e-car share services that people can rent when they need them. It complements rather than replaces existing public transport by providing flexible transport options that connect people to destinations that fixed public transport routes simply cannot reach. The first mile and last mile of any journey are as important as the middle. We know there are people who would like to get public transport to work but the time it takes them to get from their house to the bus stop or station at either end of the commute can act as a disincentive.”
“Sensible preparation should not be mistaken, however, for advocating a pre-determined constitutional outcome. A real opportunity exists now to build on existing work and to have detailed, respectful conversations on these issues. I hope that the Government will pay real attention to this Bill and move to set up the frameworks that will support this historic dialogue.”
“Climate and nature, renewable energy systems, water and environmental protection, tackling poverty, protecting human rights and improved cross-Border public services are practical, all-island challenges and they require that level of co-operation, irrespective of future constitutional arrangements. The constitutional change must be codesigned with all sides in Northern Ireland's communities involved. It cannot be confined to the territorial question alone; it should examine democratic reform, governance and institutional design. The Green Party believes that the question of institutional design is fundamental. To date, the Assembly in Northern Ireland has only passed 15 Bill in its 2022-2027 mandate. The current system is not serving the people of Northern Ireland. We will be supporting this Bill today.”
“As voters in Northern Ireland look to alternatives to the sectarian policies that have kept Stormont from governing effectively, my colleagues in the Green Party Northern Ireland are seeing increasing support across all communities. Some of the most pressing issues of our time, such as energy and climate, are ones that cannot be contained within borders. The island of Ireland is a single, biodiverse unit and the Green Party has consistently advocated for increased co-operation across a range of issues. With that in mind, any proposed Green Paper should explicitly address issues that affect everybody, irrespective of their constitutional preference.”
“The consent principle is non-negotiable and any future constitutional change must take place strictly within the agreement's existing voting and consent mechanism. There should be no suggestion of altering or diluting these safeguards. The memory of the Troubles remains a fresh wound in the minds of many and in order to ensure any peaceful outcome or transition, all citizens must be treated equally and given their say. That would be best done by consulting people directly through a citizens' assembly, as is proposed by this Bill, and also in the recommendations of the 2024 report from the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The Green Party is an all-island one. We get votes in Bangor and Blanchardstown, Larne and Lismore, Newtonards and Navan.”
“I thank Deputy McDonald for bringing forward this Bill. Having consulted with my colleague, the leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, Mal O'Hara, I will support the Bill on Second Stage to allow this debate to continue. My support on this Stage should not be conflated with endorsement of any one party's framing of the constitutional issue. That issue is bigger than us all and everybody, from the ground up, must be involved in the conversation. A grassroots approach to ensuring that the voices of all communities are adequately heard and represented is essential in planning for any potential change. Any such planning must also include unequivocal support for the Good Friday Agreement in its entirety.”
“On that point, I believe we are fighting yesterday's war because even in the United States that steadfast support for everything the Netanyahu government does is fading. For a Democrat who gets donations from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, it is a kiss of death in the primary elections. This cause, the cause of Natanyahu, is lost in the Democratic Party and even in significant and growing parts of the Republican Party the overreach Netanyahu has demonstrated in terms of the Iran war is undermining support for him. The Government is fighting yesterday's war in terms of adhering to the Trump administration's view.”
“If Ireland acts on this Bill, we will deliver restrictions on services immediately but, more importantly, we will continue that leadership role and we will show a direction for other member states to follow, in the same way they followed us when we took the brave step of recognition of Palestinian statehood, in the same way we have shown leadership on calling out genocide in Gaza, and in the same way we stood up for United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, when there was major pressure against it from other members states. We have shown leadership in the past but by passing a Bill that excludes services and excludes the most meaningful restrictions we can implement, we are sacrificing that leadership role and we are sacrificing it on the basis of fear of the Trump administration.”
“Nevertheless, Spain has justified that restriction on advertising of services on the grounds of the public policy justification in Article 36 of the TFEU and no effort has been made by the European Union to take enforcement action because it accepts what everybody accepts: that the distinction the Government is trying to rely on does not really exist in terms of the day-to-day application of European Union law. While everyone here accepts that action at an EU level on restricting trade for goods and services with the occupied territories is the better approach, and I welcome the statements the Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and the Taoiseach have made, we have no certainty of success following and relying solely on that EU route.”
“Professor Graham Butler, who actually does not agree with the overall approach of the Bill, said on that point: I am in total agreement with what Professor Koutrakos said about the [public policy] existence of the exception even if it is not explicit for services in the same way as it is for goods. So, there is no case law to justify the distinction. The strong academic advice is that there is no distinction, and the practical application of what is happening in Spain demonstrates there is no distinction either. That is because Spain has brought in national legislation restricting goods from the occupied territories and restricting the advertisement of services. I know that is a narrower ground than the initial one put forward in Senator Black's Bill.”
“Indeed, if we look at the vast bulk of case law discussing goods and services from the Court of Justice of the European Union, over decades it has always sought to treat the protection of the free movement of goods and services and limitations on those freedoms identically rather than trying to separate them and treat the two differently. Not only is there no case law, the strong advice heard and the strong academic understanding of EU law that was at the Oireachtas committee also speaks very much to there being no distinction on the grounds of a difference in treatment between goods and services when it comes to public policy. Professor Takis Tridimas and Professor Panos Koutrakos said very clearly that public policy provides a derogation not only from the free movement of goods but also the freedom to provide services.”
“This is a political decision taken by this Government which, in my view and that of many colleagues here, is dictated by fear of the Trump administration. Last week during oral questions I raised the issue of the exclusion of services with the Minister, Deputy McEntee. She argued that there was a distinction in terms of how the public policy exemption contained in Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, applied to goods and services by saying it does apply to goods and somehow does not apply to services. What I say now and what I said then is that distinction is entirely unconvincing. First, it is not backed up by any case law. There is no case law that says the public policy justification does not apply to services.”
“Let me reiterate what those obligations are as set out in Article 29(3) of the Constitution: "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States." Yet today the Government will push forward with this Bill which is knowingly and intentionally inconsistent with international law because it does not go far enough and does not meet the criteria set out in the ICJ opinion. This did not have to happen. The issue of services was introduced by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael after the 2024 general election. The concern about services did not originate in the legal advice given by the Attorney General to the last Government.”