Sharon Keogan
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Independent · Ireland
“The future of European border security is being decided right row at the European Commission. It is currently drafting the renewed mandate of Frontex, the EU border police force. As Ireland holds the rotating EU Presidency, the Minister for justice cannot simply pose as a disinterested broker while our European borders are compromised.”
“Holding the EU Presidency gives this Government massive agenda-setting leverage at the Council of Ministers. The Minister must use this chairing power to strip out counterproductive rights promotion provisions. Under the guise of good intentions, these provisions and their enforcers have defanged and undermined Frontex.”
“I thank the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and I appreciate that he will engage with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, on this. We live in the land of technology.”
“The Minister, Deputy Calleary, is welcome to the House. I rise to focus the attention of the House on a vital public service that sits at the very heart of social inclusion on this island, the free travel scheme.”
“Sitting down with Stormont to deliver a single unified rule book for free travel means we lift everyone to the same high standards of dignity and mobility, ensuring that a person's vulnerability is not penalised simply because of the jurisdiction they happen to live in.”
“It will point to the senior pass scheme, where a resident here can apply for a separate concessionary card to travel into the North. Let us be completely honest with ourselves.”
The complete record
Every one of 772 lines we hold for Sharon Keogan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 16.
“I also wish all the staff in these Houses, including Bridget Doody and her team in the office, the catering staff, the ushers, everyone in the Bills Office and all of those who look after us every single day and who make our work a lot better, a safe, happy and healthy summer.”
“The projected number for 2026 is 573,000 people, which would cost €296 million. I also did an analysis of the introduction of a €200 recreational voucher for those aged 16 to 19. The figure was again a little bit shocking. How much it would cost the Government was not too shocking. It would only have cost approximately €61 million. However, the number of young people in 2026 is projected to be 309,000, while it is expected to be only slightly above that in 2030. We have a serious issue with regard to those growing older in society but also with regard to our younger population. I would like the Minister to look at funding these two proposals. They are very worthy causes for the young people and the elderly of this country. I wish all my colleagues a very happy, healthy and safe summer.”
“Many people think that we are all going on holidays tomorrow until the middle of September and that is it, but an awful lot of work goes on behind the scenes both in this House and back in our constituencies that people might not be aware of. As part of that, I acquired a young man who previously worked in Senator McDowell's office, Padraig Monaghan, to do a little bit of work with the Parliamentary Budget Office regarding some submissions I would like to make in respect of the budget the Department of Finance will be looking at in the coming months. I did one on the cost of introducing free broadband for older and vulnerable persons. It was not actually the cost that shocked me but the number of recipients of the household benefits package and how it is set to increase from 2026 to 2030 by almost 100,000 people.”
“I move amendment No. 12: In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 46 of Principal Act 6. Section 46(3)(b) of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subparagraph after subparagraph (vi): “(vii) the members of the local authority who shall have discretion in approving whether land should be zoned for residential use or other forms of use;”.”.”
“I move amendment No. 11: “Insertion of section 42A in Principal Act 6. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 42: “Empowerment of Local Authorities 42A. Local authorities shall have the power to purchase unzoned land for residential use or other forms of use to address regional spatial and economic strategies.”.”.”
“12 complements this by restoring discretion to elected councillors in zoning decisions. It inserts a new subparagraph in section 46, making it clear that councillors, not just officials, should have the final say on whether land is zoned for housing or other uses. Zoning is a reserved function, or at least it used to be, but more and more we see national policy overriding local decisions. That is not right. If a council wants to zone land for housing, enterprise or community use, it should be able to do so without having to refer to diktats in Dublin. These amendments are about trust - trusting local knowledge, local democracy, and the people closest to the ground to make the right decisions for their communities. If we are serious about solving the housing crisis, we need to cut through the red tape and empower those who can act.”
“Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 go to the heart of what I believe is missing from the Bill, real empowerment for local authorities. Amendment No. 11 proposes a new section 42A, which would allow local authorities to purchase unzoned land for residential and other strategic uses. This is a practical, common-sense measure. Right now, councils can only buy land that is already zoned, but that land is often more expensive, more contested and more difficult to develop. Why not let councils act earlier? Let them identify land that is suitable, buy it at a fair price, zone it appropriately and get on with the job of delivering homes. This is how we used to do things in this country. When we were poorer, we built more because we trusted local authorities to lead. Amendment No.”
“It is about trusting our local representatives and trusting the people who are on the ground to make the right decisions, to build the houses in the right places and to know where the water services are. Councillors are not stupid. They do not put planning into areas that have not got services. They know their areas, they know what works and they are accountable to their people, not to a framework, not to a regulator and not to a Department. This is why I call for a repeal of these sections. Let us restore balance, restore democracy and give local government the respect and responsibilities it needs.”
“We bring in emergency legislation for stupid things but we cannot bring in emergency legislation to build houses for our people. Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, continue in the same vein. They embed a system where local authorities are implementers, not decision-makers, where councillors are sidelined and where the lived experience of communities is ignored in favour of abstract targets and glossy strategies. I have said it before and I will say it again. Ireland has one of the weakest systems of local government in Europe and instead of strengthening it, this legislation continues to hollow it out. We need to trust our local representatives. That is what this legislation is about when it comes to planning.”
“Planning should be bottom up, not top down, but what we see in these sections is the opposite. We see a centralised vision being imposed on communities regardless of their needs, their geography or their aspirations. Section 21, for example, reinforces the idea that local development plans must conform to national policy, but who defines that policy? It is not the people, the councillors or the communities. It is defined by civil servants and consultants and your fella in the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, often with little or no connection with the areas affected. In the most recent vote here, the OPR dezoned 28,000 ha that would have delivered 100,000 homes for the people in this country and we are in a housing crisis.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Repeal of section 21 of Principal Act 3. Section 21 of the Principal Act is repealed.”. I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, which propose to repeal sections 21 to 24, inclusive, of the principal Act. These sections, as they stand, embed the national planning framework deeper into our planning system. I have serious concerns about this direction. Let me be clear: the national planning framework is not law. It was never voted on by the people. It is a policy document that has become a straitjacket for local democracy. It is being used to override the will of elected councillors to dictate from Dublin what should be decided in Drogheda, Donegal and Dingle.”
“The Department is looking for lands that are zoned or may have services on them. Almost half these lands were dezoned by the Planning Regulator in 2018. I remember being a member of the council at the time and we had to dezone land. Here we are shouting for housing today. For me, this office has been the biggest stumbling block to housing in this country and it should be terminated.”
“It sets objectives for a county's development plan, determines planning strategies and sets objectives for each of the local authorities. It has dezoned land. The amount of land that was dezoned in this country by the Planning Regulator is criminal. The Bill last year reinforced the role of the Office of the Planning Regulator which, from time to time has sought to undermine planning decisions. Ireland has one of the weakest systems of local government in Europe. We should be looking to change this. Considering that most councillors are familiar with their area, they should be the ones entrusted to make decisions on planning, zoning and other issues. At this moment in time local authority members are waiting for the numbers to come out from the Department on what they will be allowed to build.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 1 of Principal Act 3. Section 1 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2): “(2A) Without prejudice to subsection (2) the provisions of this Act relating to the repeal of the termination of the Office of the Planning Regulator shall come into effect on the passing of this Act.”.”. This relates to the Office of the Planning Regulator, which has been the biggest stumbling block when it comes to building housing in this country. The Government talked earlier this year about appointing a housing tsar. I think we already have one. This particular regulator has caused serious issues for city and county councillors.”
“I call on the Minister for Health to appear in this Chamber for an open debate on this issue and for her to clarify her position in light of the growing global reassessment.”
“Twice in the past two months I have stood in this Chamber calling for the Oireachtas to lead an open discussion on gender and sex policy especially regarding treatment of minors with gender dysphoria. I warned that our silence and often monolithic stance is steering us towards endorsing the affirmative care model whose basis in theory - I use those words loosely - faces global criticism for lacking robust evidence and causing irreversible harm to vulnerable youth. Treatments like puberty blockers, which are heavily restricted in the UK, are still claimed by WPATH to be reversible. We are still allowing a small clique of NGOs and policymakers, who should really be seen as ideological activists, to dominate, thereby turning a national conversation into an elitist monologue.”
“I rise to speak about a worrying development in our medical policymaking sector. Last week, the Professional Association for Trans Health Ireland, PATHI, welcomed the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, decision to advocate for adopting the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, WPATH, standards of care, an organisation criticised for its ideological, unscientific approach and activist-heavy leadership. The motion reportedly passed with 97% support. While I am sceptical of such conformity in any vote, it is sadly common in our nation. Of course, people will vote with near unanimity when they have only been exposed to one side of the argument and told that the opposing side is morally reprehensive when they hear of it at all.”
“I know. I support the Bill. I urge the House to consider what we must do next. We need a broader conversation – one that includes the criminal justice system, the rights of the victim and the recognition of the unborn life in cases of violence.”
“However, I believe it is entirely appropriate in the context of this debate to highlight the moral logic that underpins this Bill that the loss of pregnancy is a loss of life, of hope and of potential. If we accept that logic in the civil sphere, then we must also begin to ask why our criminal law does not reflect the same truth. If a pregnancy ends in violence due to a violent assault and the unborn child dies, that death is not counted. There is no separate offence, no additional charge or justice for the child. This is not about abortion or interfering with reproductive rights. It is about intentional violence, criminal accountability and ensuring that when a child dies in the womb-----”
“I have spoken before of a young woman from Dublin who, while 22 weeks pregnant, was stabbed to death by her partner. The court heard he intended to kill her unborn child but no charges were brought for that death. I have spoken of the 27-year-old mother in Donadee who, at 34 weeks pregnant, was murdered in her home. Two lives were lost but only one victim was recognised in law. These cases are tragic but they also expose a legislative vacuum. While this Bill recognises the emotional loss of pregnancy, our criminal law does not yet recognise the legal loss of an unborn child when the loss is caused by violence. I am fully aware that this Bill is focused on employment law and civil registration. It amends the Organisation of Working Time Act and related legislation. It does not and cannot create new criminal offences.”
“It is a Bill that speaks to the emotional reality of pregnancy loss and it brings our legal framework closer to the lived experience of many families. However, while I support the Bill wholeheartedly, I must say it does not go far enough. The legislation recognises the loss of a child in early pregnancy as something worthy of leave, recognition and respect but it also unintentionally draws attention to a deeper inconsistency in our laws that we can no longer ignore. Let me remind the House of the Women’s Aid 2024 annual report, which revealed that 188 pregnant or postpartum women were supported last year due to intimate partner abuse. These are not just statistics. They are women whose lives and the lives of their unborn children were placed in danger.”
“Under this legislation, employees who experience pregnancy loss will be entitled to paid leave of five working days for the person who was pregnant and two and a half days for that person's partner or co-parent. This is a humane and necessary reform. It gives people the space to grieve, recover and be acknowledged for this loss. The Bill also provides for the creation of a confidential opt-in registry of pregnancy loss. This is a powerful and symbolic measure. It allows parents to formally record the existence of a child who may never have been legally recognised. For many, this will be a source of healing and dignity. I commend the sponsors of the Bill for their thoughtful and compassionate work.”
“I thank Nicole for sharing her personal story. There are many women in this Chamber who could share their stories, too, but today this is about Nicole's story. I want to thank her for introducing this legislation, which marks a significant compassionate step forward in how we as a society and as a legislature recognise the reality of pregnancy loss. The Bill acknowledges something that many families have known for far too long – that the loss of a pregnancy, whether at six weeks or 16 weeks, is not just a medical event, but a bereavement. It is a moment of grief, heartache, heartbreak and profound emotional impact. It is time the law reflected the truth.”
“On a point of order, and for clarity, I did not withdraw the comments. I said I would think about it and rise again if I wanted to withdraw the comments. I had a lot more to say but unfortunately I was cut short and I did not get my five minutes.”
“Finally, I want to speak on a broader concern, the erosion of free speech in this country. We have seen the Government hesitate on hate speech laws, failing to provide clarity on what will or will not be criminalised. We have seen proposals to include a so-called Kneecap provision in anti-terror legislation, a clause mirroring the very same one being used to persecute Irish artists in the UK, with language so vague it could be used to target half the country for their views. We now see a defamation Bill that fails to protect satire, survivors and the public's right-----”
“I thank the Acting Chairperson for pointing that out. Before becoming Attorney General. Mr. Fanning was one of the country's most sought-after barristers in commercial and defamation law. While it is of course normal for legislators to follow careers in law before entering politics, we must question the systemic problems that raises. Do we really believe that this Bill, one that preserves high-value litigation by weakening public protections, was crafted with cool, disinterested objectivity by those who have profited most from the current system? Finally, I want to speak on a broader concern.”
“I must raise a question that many are thinking but few are willing to say out loud. Is there a conflict of interest at the heart of this Bill? The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and Attorney General, Rossa Fanning, have both earned substantial sums from defamation litigation. Deputy O'Callaghan, a senior counsel, has represented high-profile clients in major defamation cases.”
“Let me give a hypothetical but all too real example. A woman is assaulted by a powerful man. She does not go to the Garda. She is afraid, ashamed and unsure she will be believed. Years later, she speaks out online. She does not name the man but he sues her anyhow. Under this Bill, unless she can prove the case is manifestly unfounded, she will be dragged through the courts. She will face legal bills, public scrutiny and the very real possibility of financial ruin. That is the reality this Bill fails to confront. What of the jury? The Irish Council of Civil Liberties, ICCL, the Law Society and retired High Court judge Bernard Barton have all warned against removing juries from defamation trials. Juries are not a relic, they are safeguard. They are the people's voice in the courtroom. Removing them is not reform, it is regression.”
“Let us talk about SLAPPs, strategic lawsuits against public participation. These are lawsuits designed not to win but to silence, to punish people for speaking out, and they are happening here in Ireland. We have seen journalists dragged through the courts for reporting on corruption. We have seen whistleblowers threatened for exposing wrongdoing and survivors of sexual abuse warned that if they speak publicly, they could be sued. This is not justice; it is intimidation. This Bill introduces a weak test of "manifestly unfounded". It does not go far enough. It does not reverse the burden of proof or stay proceedings to prevent legal costs from piling up. It does not empower courts to penalise abusive plaintiffs. The Ireland anti-SLAPPs network and ISME have both called for stronger protections. Why are we ignoring them?”
“I welcome the Minister into the Chamber again and thank him for coming in so many times to listen to Senators while we scrutinise this legislation. I express my deep concern about the direction the Government is taking with the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024. This is not a reform Bill; it is a retreat from fairness, transparency and the rights of ordinary people. Let us begin with the business community. ISME, which represents small and medium enterprises throughout the country, has called this Bill bad law. It warns that it fails to cap damages, introduce a serious harm threshold and protect retailers from speculative claims. It is not alone. Retailers, hoteliers and shopkeepers are all saying the same thing. This Bill will not reduce litigation abuse; it will entrench it.”
“Will the Minister address that today? I wish him well because if any Minister is going to tackle illegal immigration, it will be him. We want a firm message to go out that if people are here illegally, they will be deported. The message must go out that they must get out or be put out. I wish the Minister luck and continued success in his role.”
“I was probably one of the strongest opponents of Ireland opting in to this migration pact in this House along with a small number of Independent Senators. People are entering this country illegally and when people enter illegally, they have to be dealt with and returned. People are sick of people entering this country illegally and not facing the consequences of it. The Minister stated that the proposals were being accepted to ensure Ireland's immigration system is robust. I do not believe it is robust, I do not believe it is effective and I do not believe it is sufficient. I do believe the Minister is making progress, but he needs to do more. He definitely needs to do more. They are still coming in through Belfast. It seems very little has been done to increase Border patrols with the PSNI and An Garda Síochána.”
“While both cases are from the UK, we have similar shortcomings in our own laws. Fellow Members of the House, the Pregnancy Loss (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025 currently before this House rightly recognises the profound loss experienced by families whose babies die before the 24-week threshold for stillborn registration. This is a welcome step but does not go far enough. We must now ask, where is the legal protection for the unborn victims of violence? When a pregnant woman is attacked and her unborn child dies as a result, our laws do not treat that as a loss of a human life. This is a moral and legal failing. I intend to support any legislation to address this gap because justice must be done, not just for the women who suffer but for the unborn children who die unseen and unaccounted for.”
“The Women's Aid 2024 annual report published last week paints a harrowing picture of domestic abuse in this country. Among the most disturbing findings is that 188 pregnant, post-partum or post-termination women were supported by Women's Aid last year due to intimate partner abuse. This is not just a statistic; it is a national disgrace. Tragically, this issue is not abstract. Just this weekend, a 27-year-old mother of two was murdered in Donaghadee in Northern Ireland. She was 34 weeks' pregnant; two lives lost, two victims. Similarly, let us not forget the case of Ailish Walsh, a young woman from Dublin who was 22 weeks' pregnant when she was stabbed to death by her partner in 2022. The court heard he intended to kill her unborn child but no charges were brought for that death.”
“This is not justice; this is bureaucracy shielding banks and funds from accountability. While our people suffer, this Government continues to pour petrol on the fire. Its reckless unvetted migration policy is exacerbating the housing crisis, driving up demand and pushing vulnerable Irish families further into the margins. On Saturday, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest. They were ordinary citizens, not extremists, demanding fairness, transparency and a Government that puts Irish people first. What was the Government's response? Silence, dismissal and smears. We need action. We need an independent consumer protection body, a reformed FSPO that serves the people, not the banks, and a migration policy that is sustainable, lawful and rooted in the needs of our communities, not dictated by globalist agendas.”
“Today I rise to speak for the voiceless, those 200,000 Irish citizens, many of them in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, who were sold out by their own Government and financial institutions. These are not reckless borrowers; these are neighbours, pensioners and parents trapped in a nightmare of missold mortgages and are now preyed upon by vulture funds operating in the shadows of our financial system. Let us call it what it is: a systemic betrayal. The Central Bank, tasked with protecting consumers, instead played both referee and player, overseeing prudential supervision while failing to enforce consumer rights. The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, is a toothless body, rejecting nearly half of all complaints before they even reach mediation.”
“Those at the bottom cannot get those grants and very often, the ones at the top cream off those grants and there is no help for the lads at the bottom to get them. Many grantepreneurs in this country using that system to levy their businesses and we should be looking after smaller businesses at this time. Let us not allow the SME test to become another well-meaning policy that gathers dust. Let us make it a living, breathing commitment to our small businesses. Let us legislate with empathy, insight and courage and give SMEs the voice and the future they deserve.”
“It is about fairness and respect and about ensuring that the people who take risks, create jobs and build communities are not punished by the very system that should support them. There is no mention in this motion of social enterprises, which employ about 83,000 people in this country. They are a very important part of our enterprise sector. Our colleague from Sinn Féin spoke earlier about investment in research and development. Many companies are well established. I call them "grantepreneurs". Many companies in this country are very good at getting grants. I call those companies "grantepreneurs" because they have been getting grants for years and then they hit a stumbling block and do not know how to get over it. Grants are given to create growth and that is what they should be used for.”
“The one-size-fits-all approach must end. A policy that works for a multinational tech firm will not work for a rural mechanic. We must tailor our regulations for the diverse tapestry of Irish enterprise. The recent directive from the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, to 19 agencies to reduce red tape is a step in the right direction, but we must go further. We must embed the SME test into every stage of the legislative process, not as an afterthought but as a core principle. We must empower the Seanad to play its full role in this. When we involve this House, we bring in the voices of entrepreneurs, educators, community leaders and advocates. We bring in the lived experience of those who know what it means to run a business in Ireland today, and I do too, as do many of our colleagues around this Chamber. This is not just about economics.”
“While not necessarily a bad thing, this means they are hardly likely to rock the boat, either. That is why Senator Aubrey McCarthy and I proposed this amendment, to ensure that the SME test is not just applied but applied with the full scrutiny and insight of the Seanad. This House, with its diverse backgrounds and expertise, is uniquely positioned to champion the voice of the small business owner. We must also address the uncertainty that new regulations bring. When business owners do not know what is coming, they hesitate, delay hiring and postpone investment. That hesitation stifles innovation, growth and opportunity. We need clarity, consistency and confidence. We need to ensure that regulations are scalable, that they reflect the realities of the different sectors and that they come with clear guidance and support.”
“I spoke earlier today, during the Order of Business, using the example of the national economic dialogue, where only a small number of organisations represent our private sector and of those, it is disproportionately larger corporations that are represented. Let me use another, more in-depth example. Chambers Ireland represents a network of more than 40 chambers of commerce across the nation, which, in turn, represent more than 8,000 businesses. However, the Central Statistics Office, CSO, has estimated that as of 2022, there were up to 390,000 enterprises in the country. This strongly indicates that well under 1% of enterprises are represented by chambers of commerce. Of those represented in their local chamber, there will frequently be a disproportionate number of the bigger, wealthier and well-established businesses.”
“We forget that they do not have compliance departments or legal advisers. We forget that every new form, regulation and requirement is time away from serving customers, growing their businesses and creating jobs. A 2018 study showed that regulatory compliance disproportionately affected smaller firms. That is not just a statistic; it is a warning we must heed. When we overburden SMEs, we put at risk not just their survival but the resilience of our entire economy. The problem is not just the regulations themselves but the process. SMEs are often excluded from the conversation and consultations are dominated by large corporations with lobbying power and legal teams. Meanwhile, the butcher in Ballinasloe or the florist in Finglas is left out in the cold.”
“I rise today in support of the motion and in defence of our small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our communities. The SME test, as outlined in the programme for Government, is a tool meant to protect these businesses from the unintended consequences of legislation. Tools are only as good as the hands that wield them, however. Right now, I fear we are not wielding this one with the care and precision it demands. Let us be honest; SMEs are not just economic units. They are family-run shops, local trades, start-ups with dreams and cornerstone employers in towns and villages throughout Ireland. They are the people who support the local GAA teams, who know their customers by name and who stay open late because someone needs help. They are the heartbeat of Irish society. Yet, when we legislate, we often forget them.”
“We must put a total stop to the Government's practice of having the brass neck to claim it is engaging with the so-called public when in reality, it is consulting the cronies whom it pays and whose advice is always inevitably to do more of the same or worse. It is time for us to smash this policymakers' cartel if Ireland is to progress. I look forward to the Private Members' motion this evening.”
“While the dialogue for 2025 has more private sector representation, the organisations still only represent a fraction of our SMEs. Those present still overwhelmingly represented big businesses and multinationals. The vast majority of SMEs, which constitute 90% of our businesses, employ up to two thirds of our citizens and likely contribute as much as 30% of our tax revenue, are left out in the cold without so much as a say, invite or notification. Who makes up the lion's share of voices at this forum? It is NGOs, paid for by taxpayer money; university academics, subsidised by taxpayer money; and Government and public sector bodies, paid for - you guessed it - by taxpayer money.”
“As a member of the industrial and commercial panel, I wish to speak about a total farce and affront to democracy and the business community that took place earlier this week. I am speaking about the national economic dialogue. I do not need to remind anyone that our country is currently trapped in a state of total policy inertia. It is not the inertia of a broken down car stuck on the road but that of a car rolling down a hill with the brakes off and no driver at the wheel. If there is any forum that captures this, it is the NED. The forum, which is purported to be a consultation with the public, has virtually no representation of the private sector. Looking at the 2024 participation list, only nine of the 101 organisations represented the private sector.”
“When we look to our own country and see that someone who raises concerns about crime or migration is labelled far right, when we see the media freezing out certain voices and when we see politicians in these Houses refusing to engage with accredited media because of their political views, we must recognise this culture is all too present in Ireland today.”
“The report identified 700 cases of grooming reported in 2023 alone, a figure that is likely an underestimate due to unreliable and, frankly, dishonest reporting. Other studies have estimated that over the past few decades, as many as 1 million young women may have been groomed by these gangs, who are overwhelmingly of south Asian origin. Let us be absolutely clear: this is horrific crime on a sickening scale, enabled by a culture of so-called political correctness, conformity and stifled open debate.”
“In fact, we should be having a real and honest discussion about how to reduce the number of abortions in our country. This is a humane goal that no one should oppose, whether through reasonable restrictions or by providing greater support for women facing crisis pregnancy, giving them a genuine choice. The second story from our neighbours is the recent release of the report on the grooming gangs. Commissioned by the UK Prime Minister and led by Baroness Casey, its findings are utterly damning. The report found that local authorities and police forces not only failed to act for fear of being accused of racism but, in some cases, the young girls, the victims of rape, were themselves blamed. What is the human cost?”
“Its 24-week limit is double that of nearly every other European country, where the cap is typically 12 weeks. In the UK, if a child is born prematurely at 22 weeks, the hospital will do everything possible to save its life, yet just two weeks later, that same child could be subject to a partial birth abortion, an act which would be considered tantamount to murder. British abortion activists still continue to insist that these laws are insufficient, ignoring the majority of UK voters, who believe that current laws are either adequate or too extreme. Here in Ireland, the people consented to the legalisation of abortion on the understanding that we, as a nation, would take a measured and moderate approach. We must honour that promise and not override the will of the people, as has happened too often in the UK and happens increasingly here.”