Sarah O'Reilly
Agricultural Panel · Aontú · Ireland
“I support Senator Harmon in everything she has said. I want to raise the ongoing crisis in assessments of need and the impact this is having on families in Cavan and Monaghan. Earlier this year, I was helping a mother whose young son had been offered a place in an early intervention preschool.”
“In Cavan and Monaghan alone there are 578 overdue assessments. I commend Cara Darmody on continuing to shine a light on this issue. She is absolutely right when she says children are missing the window for early intervention. We all know that the earlier a child gets support, the better the outcome. These early years are precious.”
“Parents should not have to pay out of their own pocket because the State has failed to meet its own legal obligations. Disability teams continue to be short-staffed while many newly qualified therapists and psychologists cannot get the supervised placements and recognised experience they need to practise.”
“She has already had two near misses, as she calls them, that left her badly shaken. She describes Cavan's footpaths as being like a racetrack and says she dreads leaving her home now. That should not be the case. This is not just about an inconvenience.”
“I also welcome the delegation from Canada. They are very welcome. I have three sons living and working in Manitoba, Souris and Brandon. I bring up the issue of e-scooters. Imagine being afraid every time you step outside your own front door. That is a daily occurrence for a visually impaired woman living in Cavan town.”
“People had to take long detours just to get to school. The Department said that inspections carried out in March 26 found around 130 roads needed complete reconstruction, 440 had significant damage and several bridges could no longer be used. I believe those figures cover the entire country. My question is simple.”
The complete record
Every one of 719 lines we hold for Sarah O'Reilly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 15.
“Councils are best equipped to deal with these differences in population and spread. I am a big believer that strategies should place an emphasis on serviced sites. I see it happening in Canada. My sons live in Canada and the local authority buys or has a plot of land and develops it into lots. The services are there, such as electricity and water. It is so easy then for people to go in and build on these serviced sites. They are-----”
“It is within the commuter belt of Dublin and lots of Dublin people sold their houses, came down and priced young couples out of the market in my town. I would be afraid of that happening again and would want to mitigate against that. I truly believe that local authorities and councillors are best placed to understand the needs of their own areas but that they are operating within very strict guidelines and their hands are tied. There is a top-down approach from the Government and the Planning Regulator. Ireland has one of the most centralised governments in Europe and we all know that. We should trust our local authorities more and devolve more power to them. Everywhere is different and a one-size policy cannot fit everywhere. In west Cavan, we have very bad depopulation. In east Cavan, we have a very high population.”
“I would love to have about 20 minutes on this. I welcome this debate very much. I hope Minister of State is listening to the suggestions because this is a big bugbear of mine. Good suggestions have been made here today, but I do not see anybody taking notes and that bugs me too. We have harsh planning restrictions that have been a plague on rural communities, so I am delighted to see that the Government is finally listening to what we have been saying for years. We need to be careful about the rules, particularly local needs rules, being relaxed so much that rural house prices are pushed up. That is what happened in the Celtic tiger era. I know it is houses but I would be afraid that if we relaxed the local needs rules in respect of planning, the same would happen again. I live in the town of Bailieborough.”
“It leaves open routes for disclosure that many survivors fear could continue the very practice the Bill seeks to address. I am hoping the Minister will reconsider this when he comes before the Seanad.”
“In court, they used this to try to frame her as a bad mother withholding affection from her children. It is absolutely disgusting that a moment of vulnerability in a private counselling session could be used as a way to discredit her as a loving mother. On "Liveline", Paula said "he took my body and then the State took my mind and handed it over to him." The very least a victim of abuse should expect is to have their innermost thoughts and feelings safeguarded from their predator. While I welcome the progress made in this Bill, I do not believe it goes far enough. The Minister indicated there would be a statutory presumption against disclosure of counselling notes but that is not what the legislation actually provides for.”
“Tonight in the Dáil, Deputies will be speaking on Report Stage of the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. Within that Bill is a really important move to recognise counselling notes as legally privileged material. It is incredibly violating for victims of sexual abuse to have their counselling notes essentially handed over to their abuser and their legal team. I was listening to Paula Doyle on "Liveline" yesterday and I commend her courage in speaking out about the abuse she suffered at the hands of her partner. She spoke about the trauma she faced when her counselling notes were used against her by the defence. In her counselling sessions, she had described how difficult she found hugging her children because of how defiled she felt after years of sexual abuse.”
“The Government is focused on giving additional rights to corporations and not protecting the Irish taxpayers, who will eventually end up paying the bill because of the "best advice" that was available to us at the time. I sometimes go back up to my office and say I do not know what has been said in the Chamber. This is because an awful lot of it is bluster. I deal only in direct, clear language, and we have been very clear on this side about what is wanted. There has been a disingenuous approach to what we are asking for. Many times before, issues with legislation have cropped up that have been warned about. I ask the Minister of State to consider amendments Nos. 4 and 6.”
“He will say we were dealing with the best advice available to us. That will be too late. All we are asking the Minister of State to do is listen to proposed amendments that we see as protecting our sovereignty and our taxpayers against possible exposure to huge fines or penalties. On the Trócaire point, Trócaire is speaking because it has seen the damage from arbitration tribunals up close. That is why it is speaking. I do not think the Minister of State has covered the chilling effect. On this side of the House, we are all in agreement about the chilling effect caused. Whereas we can see it happening, the Minister of State has not pointed out that it is not. I ask him to accept amendment No. 4. It is not overly prescriptive, as he has said. It is fair and would endorse our sovereignty.”
“Yes, the Minister of State says in his response there is €12 billion of trade with Canada. That €12 billion of trade is happening without this agreement. He still has not explained the need for this agreement as it is or the reason he is refusing to accept amendment No. 4. On amendment No. 6, Senator Clonan brought up the socialisation of the debt and exposing Irish citizens and future generations to the financial risk. If there is one thing I have learned from just being a layperson, it is that we are constantly listening to how mistakes have been made. We are constantly being told about previous errors that governments were warned about but refused to listen to and there is a pattern and history of this. I know exactly what the Minister of State will say in a few years' time.”
“4 - about which we have been stressing about over and over and which is really what this comes down to - I have just written a note that the Minister of State said the judge asked us or warned us not to be overly prescriptive. I do not feel that is overly prescriptive at all. It is merely a mirror image of what the Government has written itself. The amendment mirrors what the Government drafted and the only significant change was in the proposed subsection(3)(c), which simply states that an award should not be enforceable where it would "materially impair the capacity of the State to legislate or regulate in the public interest". The Government is effectively exposing the country to arbitration courts. The Minister of State spoke in his response about trade. We are talking about arbitration courts here, not trade and jobs.”
“I have only been here for the very short time of a year but I am trying to get to grips with things. Sometimes, when people are talking, I ask myself what did they actually say. There were an awful lot of words there but I do not think the Minister of State addressed what we are looking for here today. On the capacity of the State being materially impaired to legislate or regulate in the public interest, we have really been trying to stress our point on that over and over and in different ways to get the Minister of State to answer it and he consistently does not answer it. All I could pick up from what the Minister of State said in his response there on amendment No.”
“Yet, as implementation approaches, questions continue to emerge around costs, obligations, burden, sharing arrangements and the practical realities of how the system will operate. These are issues that were brushed aside during the legislative process, as is happening here. I fear that in one or two years’ time people will view this legislation through the same lens and will be questioning why the Government passed legislation that does not protect the State or the interests of the country. While I welcome any opportunity to improve or enhance trade with other countries, this can be achieved without investor courts. If the Government truly believes in protecting the State’s ability to legislate now and into the future, it should have no issue supporting this amendment.”
“The Minister of State, on the one hand, criticised Senators for referring to CETA in the debate but then used the framework of the CETA agreement to justify why this amendment is unnecessary for the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill. It is incredibly strange and disingenuous. Many of the concerns expressed, both here today and before, relate to how these arrangements may operate in practice over time. We are being asked to accept assurances that everything will be fine and the right to regulate will be protected, but why can this not be reflected in the legislation? It would provide greater peace of mind and assurances that all will be fine. The discussion reminds me of the debates that took place on the EU migration pact. At the time, many of the legitimate concerns raised were dismissed. People were told that they had little to worry about.”
“This simply states that an award should not be enforceable where it “materially impairs the capacity of the State to legislate or regulate in the public interest.”. The Minister of State never really explained why he would not accept that amendment. We heard repeated references to the right to regulate. We heard references to legal advice and the Attorney General, but we never heard a clear explanation as to why this specific wording would be objectionable. If the Government is genuinely confident that Ireland’s right to regulate is fully protected, then surely there should be no difficulty in explicitly reflecting that principle within the legislation.”
“I am speaking to amendment No. 4. I will start by saying that I was disappointed by the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, during the previous debate. Rather than engaging with the substance of the amendment, he sought to portray those in opposition as somehow being anti-trade. No one is arguing against trade with Canada. No one is arguing against Irish business exporting, creating jobs or accessing new markets. The issue is the investor courts and the lack of protection for the State should this legislation be passed. We want to see where that protection lies within the legislation. This amendment mirrors the Government’s drafting, with the only significant change being the addition of paragraph (c).”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 4, to delete lines 14 to 19 and substitute the following: “(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that an award made by a body empowered to make awards pursuant to an international agreement to which this section applies is not, and never was, enforceable in the State if enforcing the award would— (a) conflict with the constitutional order of the State, (b) conflict with the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union, or (c) materially impair the capacity of the State to legislate or regulate in the public interest.”.”
“Only six months ago, the justice committee made a cross-party recommendation to the Government asking it to reconsider the decision to opt into the EU migration pact. Members clearly believed opting out was still a viable option and yet that recommendation was ignored. Why? Back in 2024, then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, assured people the pact would not prevent a future Government exercising sovereign flexibility. If Ireland is not forced into these arrangements, the Government currently should employ all mechanisms available to opt out of the pact.”
“The solidarity mechanism in the pact is presented as burden sharing but it is backed by financial penalties and obligations that could require Ireland to accept applications for which we would not ordinarily have responsibility under international law. Poland has secured a reduction in its solidarity obligations because of the migratory pressures it faces. In fact, 16 of the 27 EU states are under, or at risk of, similar pressures. If more and more member states qualify for exemptions or reductions, who will carry the burden? Our GDP creates a false image of the State as a wealthy European country but the reality is that our infrastructure is weak and our services, from health to education, are on their knees. Has the Government sought a reduction in quota allocations given the pressure Ireland is under?”
“In 2024, before I was a Member of this House, many TDs and Senators raised concerns about the EU migration pact. It was passed by a slim majority of seven votes in the Dáil Chamber. The Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, has repeatedly stated that a large number of asylum seekers enter the State via the North of Ireland. When challenged on how this issue could be addressed, the Minister stated the only way to stop it completely would be to impose a hard border. If that is the Minister's assessment of the challenge we face, I wonder why we have signed up to a pact that will do practically nothing to address our issues with migration.”
“If these mechanisms are to exist at all, the public has a right to know when claims are being pursued, what awards are being made and whether settlements are being entered into on behalf of taxpayers.”
“I move amendment No. 17: In page 4, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(4) The Minister shall publish, as soon as practicable, any application for enforcement under this section, any award made pursuant to such application and any settlement entered into by the State in respect of such award.”. I will keep it short and sweet so we can move on. The amendment just proposes that the Minister publishes any application for enforcement under this section, any award made pursuant to such an application and any settlement entered into by the State in relation to such awards. This is the bare minimum that should apply where potential enormous liabilities may arise against the State.”
“This amendment simply states that measures adopted for legitimate public policy purposes should not give rise to enforceable awards against the State.”
“We have seen public authorities threatened with litigation simply for attempting to regulate in the public interest. This issue is not merely whether a state technically retains a right to regulate. The issue is whether exercising that right comes with a threat of massive financial penalties that create a chilling effect on democratic decision-making. Housing is a particular important example in the Irish context. Future Governments may need to take stronger action in housing markets, land use, rental regulation or public provisions. Public health emergencies may require swift intervention. Governments must retain the freedom to act without fear that multinational corporations can seek compensation.”
“I reiterate I do not believe that this should be controversial. Throughout this debate, we have heard repeated reassurances that CETA does not undermine the State's right to regulate. If that is truly the Government's position, there should be no objection to placing that protection directly into Irish law. The concern many people have is not theoretical. We have seen globally how investor dispute mechanisms have been used against environmental protections, energy transitions, public health measures and democratic decisions taken by sovereign states. We have seen the tobacco companies pursue states over health warnings. We have seen energy corporations seek enormous compensation when governments attempt to change environmental policy.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 4, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: "(4) No award shall be enforceable under this section where the award arises from a measure adopted by the State in the exercise of its legislative, regulatory or administrative powers for a public policy objective including public health, environmental protection, climate action, housing policy, labour protection or the protection of public services.". This amendment is necessary because it provides a clear and explicit protection for the public policy measures adopted by the State. The amendment states that no award shall be enforceable where it arises from measures taken for a legitimate public policy objective including public health, environmental protection, climate action, housing policy, labour protections or the protection of public services.”
“I move amendment No. 12: In page 4, to delete lines 14 to 19 and substitute the following: "(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that an award made by a body empowered to make awards pursuant to an international agreement to which this section applies is not, and never was, enforceable in the State if enforcing the award would— (a) conflict with the constitutional order of the State, (b) conflict with the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union, or (c) materially impair the capacity of the State to legislate or regulate in the public interest.".”
“This amendment is about protecting democracy and sovereignty, protecting future governments and ensuring that no arbitration mechanism can undermine the ability of this State to legislate in the interests of its own people.”
“These are exactly the kinds of arguments that have been made under ISDS mechanisms globally. That is why this matters so much. Turning to the amendment itself, I stress that this proposal is not substantially different from the Government's own drafting. In fact, it largely reflects the assurances repeatedly given verbally by the Minister of State during the debate. The amendment simply adds an explicit safeguard, stating that no award should be enforceable where it would materially impair the capacity of the State to legislate or regulate the public interest. If he is sincere in his assurances that Ireland's right to regulate will remain fully protected, there should be absolutely no reason to oppose the amendment. It merely copper-fastens in legislation what the Government claims is guaranteed.”
“The agreement states: When applying the above fair and equitable treatment obligation, the Tribunal may take into account whether a Party made a specific representation to an investor to induce a covered investment, that created a legitimate expectation, and upon which the investor relied in deciding to make or maintain the covered investment, but that the Party [which can be the Government] subsequently frustrated. That is not my interpretation. It is the text of the agreement itself. My concern is straightforward. What exactly constitutes a "legitimate expectation"? What constitutes that expectation being frustrated? If one government encourages investment under one policy framework and a future government changes legislation in the public interest, could that become grounds for a compensation claim?”
“Before I address amendment No. 12, I want to respond briefly to comments made by the Minister of State during the previous debate. He accused me, and only me among all of those who spoke, of presenting information that was factually incorrect regarding CETA. I was not given an opportunity to reply at the time. He quoted from Article 8.9(2) but conveniently omitted the exception in the agreement to which I was explicitly referring.”
“If these corporations are placing huge additional pressure on our electricity system, they should also contribute directly to upgrading and expanding the national grid infrastructure required to support that demand. Taxpayers are effectively paying more so that the large tech companies can continue growing their profits with limited responsibility for the environment around them.”
“Their increasing demand for energy is driving higher electricity costs and the Government is expecting the average homeowner or renter to simply pay the bill. Over 300,000 households are currently in arrears with their energy bills. Ordinary working people have far less ability to absorb higher costs than multimillion euro corporations. It is totally unjust to ask families who are already struggling with rent, groceries and childcare to subsidise the energy demands of big tech. The Government is talking about the need to transition to renewables but any cheaper renewable energy that is produced will be immediately gobbled up by data centres.”
“Irish households are being asked once again to carry the burden of rising electricity costs while some of the wealthiest corporations in the world continue to expand their energy demand across this country. A new report warns that households could pay up to an additional €644 on electricity bills over the next decade because of the growth of data centres. Collectively, that could amount to well over €1 billion taken from ordinary families due to higher energy costs. Data centres now consume 22% of Ireland's electricity - more than all urban homes combined - but it is the average person who ends up paying higher electricity prices while many of these large companies benefit from lower commercial rates. For example, Amazon has 14 data centres in Ireland and the company brings in billions of euro in profit every year.”
“The MEPs might have some insight into this. I was deeply disappointed that MEPs support an amendment to recognise transgender women as women, while simultaneously rejecting or abstaining on the amendment that only biological women can get pregnant. Do they believe it is possible for men to get pregnant? I am happy to hear Ms Walsh talk about gender equality.”
“Irish fishermen watch bluefin tuna swim through our water while being restricted to a catch and release system with virtually no quota. The EU-Norway deal is another disgrace. Norway gains access to the blue whiting worth more than €21 million while Ireland is left with quotas that are not economically viable to fish. The EU has also shown far too little leadership on Palestine. We hear statements condemning Israel's actions; yet commercially and politically, it continues business as usual. Why has the EU-Israel Association Agreement not been suspended, when the human rights clause has clearly been breached? The contrast between the EU response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and its response to Israel's actions in Gaza is impossible to ignore. Economic interests are being prioritised over human life.”
“I commend Mr. Flanagan, Sinn Féin and Mr. Mullooly on the work they did in helping to secure a referral of the EU-Mercosur agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU. I also commend Mr. Mullooly on his appointment as a full voting member to the agriculture committee. With four Irish MEPs holding voting rights on that committee, we expect big things and a strong position for the next CAP reform. I ask them to prioritise generational renewal, protect family farms and ensure young farmers can afford to enter the sector. The agriculture sector needs support, but I am equally concerned - I am on the Oireachtas fisheries committee, like Senator Boyle - about the fisheries sector. It is being systematically dismantled. We control roughly 12% of EU waters, yet receive 3% to 4% of the quota allocation.”
“We have estimated that this could reduce the cost of building a home by up to €50,000. Young people, particularly in rural areas, need more supports. We should be removing barriers to families who are trying to build their own homes. We should be looking at providing serviced sites on the periphery of towns, where possible.”
“In 2024, commencement notices surged to more than 69,000 but this spike was an artificial inflation. Ordinary home builders were essentially overlooked while the Government introduced a reduced 9% VAT rate for apartment construction. Nothing comparable was introduced for young families who are trying to build a home on their own land. Now the Department of Finance has acknowledged that these measures have reduced the accuracy of statistics and artificially inflated the numbers. In other words, the dramatic headlines will not reflect the number of homes that will actually be delivered. Waivers and tax reliefs should help the young couples who are trying to build their first homes, rather than large investment funds or institutional developers. Has the Government looked at reducing VAT on construction materials?”
“The Government's housing policy has become increasingly skewed towards large developers while ordinary families who are trying to build a home are left carrying the cost. People who want to build a modest home beside their parents or on a family field are being hit with a wall of costs before a single block is laid. Connection charges can run into the thousands. A standard water connection from Uisce Éireann costs €2,000. Wastewater charges are up to €4,000, or more. ESB connections are a huge cost, if you can get a connection. The most recent development contribution fees I have seen have been between €9,000 and €10,000. That is before a block is even laid. Last year, the Government pointed to the massive increase in commencement notices as an indication that there would be a significant increase in supply.”
“That is the level of respect being shown to these councillors, who include members of Fianna Fáil, the Minister's own party, who are also not happy with the situation. We are being treated as an afterthought when it comes to infrastructural investment. We have huge increases in industry and a high volume of traffic. Roads are the backbone of our economy. People need to get their products to market, and that regional road is closed in a municipal district that has no national route. I have tabled Commencement matters on roads numerous times in this House and the Minister has still not turned up for a single debate.”
“Why would we celebrate the opening of the Killydoon bypass when it is just another excuse for the Government to have a good photo op? This 3.5 km road will be opened, while people have to travel over potholes, sinkholes and cracks on the rest of the road network. Councillors Shane P. O'Reilly, Adrian Rogers and Brendan Fay and the Sinn Féin councillors in County Cavan have all written to the cathaoirleach and chief executive of Cavan County Council to ask for a meeting with the Minister before he opens the road in Killydoon on Friday. The response they got was disrespectful and outrageous. It stated the Minister would only be there for 20 minutes and would not have time to talk to councillors.”
“The Minister of State's answer is interesting as it is just a definition of all the schemes and resources available. It does not tackle the actual issue. The Minister told councillors there would be a substantial increase in funding when, in fact, there was a decrease. Those are the facts. The Minister also said there would be an announcement before Christmas, but it did not happen until February. Councillors and Oireachtas Members continue to constantly raise this issue, but it feels like our calls are falling on deaf ears. The Minister has not been into this Chamber more than a handful of times, despite being asked to come here on many occasions. He has time to open a road in Killydoon that had already been opened by Leo Varadkar.”
“Cavan county councillors came to Leinster House many times last year with detailed evidence of road deterioration. They feel ignored and completely disrespected. The previous Government blamed the Green Party for prioritising greenways over roads, but the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, appears to be continuing with the same approach. If the Government cannot properly fund both, basic road infrastructure must come first. Will additional funding be allocated for roads in Cavan and Monaghan this year?”
“Meanwhile, there was an established shortfall of €110 million in roads investment and maintenance between 2008 and 2023. Only yesterday, the R191 Canningstown to Bailieborough road, a major regional route, had to be closed because of a sinkhole. This shows the scale of the problem we face, which I have been trying to flag in this House at every chance I get. Official PSCI - pavement surface condition index - ratings show a substantial portion of the road network in County Cavan is between categories 1 and 4 and in categories 5 and 6, which are the worst categories. At the current rate of funding, it would take 40 years to clear the backlog to get the roads to an acceptable safe standard. People have a right to get to work safely, and on safe roads.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. I cannot deny that I am disappointed again that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, is elusive when it comes to appearing in this House. Since being elected, I have consistently raised the issue of roads funding in counties Cavan and Monaghan. Roads across both counties are in a critical condition. Potholes, cracks and crumbling surfaces are accepted as normal. People pay their motor tax, carbon tax and tolls every day, yet they are driving on roads that are substandard and not fit for purpose. Earlier this year, the Government announced roads funding and described it as a "significant investment". The overall allocation was a reduction of €28,000 when compared with the 2025 allocation.”
“The Northern Irish Fine Point Films case dealt directly with this issue. In that case, the court made clear that inter partes hearings are an important safeguard in protecting journalistic privilege under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment also recognises that there may be genuinely exceptional cases where an ex parte hearing is necessary, but in those circumstances it requires the applicant to fully inform the court of the constitutional protections attaching to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. This amendment would strengthen the legitimacy and constitutionality of Garda powers, and would also bring Irish practice closer to best international standards in protecting journalistic freedom.”
“I want to speak to amendment No. 31, which the Minister said was not necessary. The amendment seeks to introduce an inter partes hearing where a search warrant is being sought in relation to journalistic material or material capable of identifying a confidential source. In plain language, this means that where the State wishes to search a journalist's home, workplace, phone or files, the journalist or media company employing them should, wherever possible, have the opportunity to be represented before the warrant is granted. At present, the Bill largely maintains an ex parte process where only one side is before the court. The concern with that approach is obvious. A judge may hear extensive arguments in favour of disclosure without hearing any argument at all from the other side. The Minister described that earlier.”
“Doing so would strengthen the Bill, reduce legal uncertainty and demonstrate that this House takes seriously both freedom of expression and the essential role investigative journalism plays in a democracy.”
“More recently, Irish courts have repeatedly affirmed the importance of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the central role the protection of sources plays in a functional democracy. This amendment simply puts this principle clearly into legislation. It provides clarity not only to journalists, but to gardaí. If we are to grant extensive powers of search, seizure and digital access under this legislation, we have a duty to ensure strong safeguards exist where press freedom may be affected. The stronger the powers of the State become, the stronger the protections for civil liberties must become. I urge the Minister and the Government to accept this amendment.”
“It is a long-recognised democratic safeguard that protects the ability of journalists to receive information from confidential sources without fear that those sources will later be exposed. Without that protection, many stories of enormous public importance would never come to light. Rather than exposing corruption, wrongdoing, abuse of power or institutional failure, potential whistleblowers would simply remain silent. The Irish courts have repeatedly recognised this principle. In the landmark case taken by the Mahon tribunal against The Irish Times in 2009, the Supreme Court recognised for the first time that journalists enjoy a right under Irish law to protect confidential sources.”