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 9 of 16.
“The ambassador is very welcome here this afternoon. I note the contribution that Latvians have made to our economy and our country over the last number of years. There are now about 25,000 Latvian people here and they make a marvellous contribution to our country. We all agree that desperate times call for decisive measures. The Government's new housing action plan for 2025 to 2030 has many welcome elements: planning reform, statutory guidelines and a promise to tackle judicial review delays. These are a step in the right direction and I commend the Government on the ambition, but I believe this plan can go further. We still have a system where a single objector can hold up thousands of homes. If I were the Minister, I would not be hiding behind layers of bureaucracy.”
“However, speakers have pointed out that Tusla has adopted it uncritically, thereby forcing vulnerable children into the custody of abusive parents. This is an appalling failure and must stop. I call on the Minister for justice to begin dismantling the in camera rule and to bring transparency to the family court and accountability to our social services. Families deserve justice, not secrecy.”
“As the alliance said, there is an unbroken chain of State abuse that did not end with the closure of the last mother and baby home. That is a damning indictment of our system. Our Government must act. We need urgent reforms to remove parent alienation from influencing custody decisions and to shine a light on what happens behind closed doors. The in camera rule has to go. It is time to follow the UK, where transparency reforms allow journalists to report on family court cases under strict anonymity safeguards, restoring public confidence and accountability. We must also challenge parent alienation itself, which is a concept with a weak scientific basis, absent from the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , DSM-5, and not accepted as a clinical diagnosis.”
“I rise today to highlight a deeply troubling issue in our family courts, namely, the misuse of the concept of parent alienation. Yesterday, I attended a presentation by the Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice. What I heard was harrowing. They told us how parent alienation is being used as a legal weapon and a tactic to dismiss mothers' allegations of child abuse against fathers. Instead of protecting children, this concept brands protective mothers as manipulators and transfers custody to the very parent accused of abuse. This is not just anecdotal. Advocacy groups and research confirm that the in camera rule, that is, the secrecy surrounding Family Court proceedings, enables this injustice. Women and children are being silenced.”
“If we are serious about protecting democracy, we need to protect the people who speak up: journalists, activists, community leaders and even just regular citizens. They are the lifeblood of public discourse. They should not have to choose between telling the truth and keeping their home. I urge the Minister to take these amendments seriously. They are not radical. They are reasonable, are grounded in expert advice and would make this Bill stronger, fairer and more effective.”
“Again, this is about stopping the abuse of process. Amendment No. 17 puts part of the burden where it belongs - on claimants. If they want to continue with their case, they should have to prove two things, first, that they are likely to win at trial and, second, that the harm they have suffered is serious enough to outweigh the public interest in free expression. That is a fair test. It is balanced and is already used in other countries. The Government's version of these provisions is weak and vague. It leaves too much discretion to the courts without giving them the tools they need. It is like giving someone a map with no compass. We need clear definitions, fair procedures and real consequences for those who abuse the courts to silence others.”
“The court should act as expeditiously as possible. That is not merely common sense; it is basic protection. The amendment would remove the manifestly unfounded barrier for the defendant, which is near unanimously criticised as a threshold so high that it nullifies the whole point of the anti-SLAPP protection. Amendment No. 15 removes a subsection that could allow unnecessary delays and procedural games. It is a clean-up amendment but an important one. We need clarification and more speed in these cases. Amendment No. 16 introduces an automatic stay on the proceedings once a SLAPP application is made. This means the plaintiff cannot keep pushing the case forward while the court is still deciding whether it is abusive. It also stops the plaintiff from sneakily changing proceedings to get around a dismissal.”
“Under the Government's current wording, such a person might be dragged through the courts for months or years before a judge even considers whether the case is abusive. That is just not good enough. Amendment No. 11 strengthens the definition of what counts as abusive court proceedings. Right now, the Bill focuses on the purpose of the lawsuit, namely, what the plaintiff intends, but that is not hard to prove. My amendment shifts the focus to the effect of the lawsuit. If it has the effect of silencing public participation, that should be enough. Intent can be hidden; impact cannot. Amendment No. 14 ensures that when someone applies to have a SLAPP struck out, the court will deal with it quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. If somebody is being silenced by a bogus lawsuit, he or she should not have to wait a year for a hearing.”
“They know what is happening on the ground and have seen the chilling effects of lawsuits on whistleblowers, campaigners and ordinary citizens. Let me give a hypothetical example. Imagine a resident in County Meath, County Clare or County Donegal raises concerns about illegal dumping by a very powerful company and posts those concerns online, speaks out to the local newspapers and attends a local council meeting. Next thing, she or he could be hit with a defamation suit. The company is not interested in winning. It just wants to shut that person up, drain her bank account, wear her down and send a message to anyone else that they should stay quiet or they will be next. That is a SLAPP.”
“All the amendments in the group deal with the section of the Bill meant to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs. I want to be very clear from the outset that I welcome the fact that the Government has finally acknowledged the need to address SLAPPs, but what we have been given here is a half-hearted attempt. It is a framework that looks good on paper but lacks the teeth to protect people who speak out in the public interest. The amendments I have tabled are not just my idea. They are based on the recommendations of the Ireland Anti-SLAPPs Network, a coalition of organisations that include journalists, NGOs, legal experts and civil society groups that have been raising the alarm on these issues for years.”
“I move amendment No. 11: In page 14, to delete lines 6 to 22 and substitute the following: " 'abusive court proceedings against public participation' means defamation proceedings or part thereof that pursue unfounded claims and that are not brought to genuinely assert or exercise a right, and have the effect of preventing, restricting or penalising public participation, frequently exploiting an imbalance of power between the parties, including but not limited to— (a) where a claim is of a disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable nature, (b) the existence of multiple proceedings initiated by the plaintiff or associated parties in relation to similar matters, (c) intimidation, harassment or threats on the part of the plaintiff or his or her representatives, or (d) the use in bad faith of procedural tactics;".”
“(5) The Minister may, by order made with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, amend the monetary amounts specified in subsections (1) and (2) having regard to— (a) changes in the value of money (including reference to the Consumer Price Index), and (b) the need to ensure that awards of damages remain proportionate and consistent with comparable awards in other areas of law. (6) An order made under subsection (5) shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and shall, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within 21 sitting days of that House after the order is laid before it, be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.”.”.”
“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to an award of special damages, being damages proven to represent actual pecuniary loss suffered by the plaintiff. (4) The limits provided for in subsections (1) and (2) shall not affect the jurisdictional monetary limit of the Circuit Court as set out in section 22 of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 or any enactment amending or replacing it.”
“I move amendment No. 10b: In page 13, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following new section: “ Amendment of section 31 of Principal Act 17 . The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following new section after section 31: “ Caps on damages in defamation actions 31A. (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), in any defamation action before the High Court the amount of general damages (including damages for injury to reputation, hurt feelings or distress) shall not exceed €250,000. (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the total award of damages in any defamation action before the High Court, including general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages, shall not exceed €400,000.”
“Wealthy international figures and corporations deliberately look for ways to ensure they can take their defamation cases in Ireland, further burdening and distorting our legal system and case law. This amendment is not about protecting defendants at the expense of plaintiffs; it is about restoring balance, predictability and stability. It is about ensuring that defamation laws serve their true purpose, to vindicate reputations, not to destroy lives. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. Let us bring defamation laws into line with best practice. Let us ensure that damages are fair, proportionate and rooted in reality.”
“I know some will argue that this interferes with judicial discretion, but is it really discretion when there are no boundaries? Is it really justice when cases can result in wildly different awards? Other areas of law, personal injuries, for example, have caps and guidelines. Why should defamation be an exception? We must also consider the broader impact on our courts. Excessive awards encourage more litigation, incentivise speculative claims and undermine public confidence in the fairness of our laws. They also clog up our already overburdened system. In fact, we have to seriously consider the fact that Ireland has become a prime destination for defamation tourism.”
“10b, I propose that general damages, those for injury to reputation and so on, be capped at €250,000 and that the total award, including aggravating and exemplary damages, be capped at €400,000. These are still substantial figures. They still allow for meaningful redress, but also introduce clarity, consistency and restraint. Importantly, this amendment does not affect special damages, those that represent actual financial loss. If somebody can prove they have lost income, contracts or opportunities because of a defamatory statement, they can still be fully compensated. This is fair and just. To ensure flexibility, the amendment allows the Minister to adjust these caps over time with reference to inflation and broader legal trends. We are not locking ourselves into a fixed figure forever. We are simply setting a reasonable benchmark.”
“Let us imagine a well-known figure who sues a local blogger for defamation. The blogger has a modest following, no legal team and limited resources. The case goes to court and the plaintiff is awarded €500,000 in damages, more than the blogger can earn in a decade. That is not justice but financial annihilation. Let us be honest. These kinds of awards do not just punish the defendant; they force most people to ask themselves whether they want to speak out and if it is really worth the risk. Even when a remote risk is potentially six-figures, the answer is invariably “No”. This is the chilling effect we keep talking about and it is what this amendment seeks to address. Under amendment No.”
“I have tabled amendment No. 10b to introduce reasonable caps on damages awarded in defamation actions before the High Court. To say something very simple, justice should be fair, proportionate and predictable. This is not a radical idea but the foundation of any functioning legal system. When it comes to defamation laws in Ireland, we are falling short of that standard. At present, there is no statutory cap on general damages in High Court defamation cases. This means a jury or a judge can award any amount they see fit with very little guidance. We have seen the consequences of this. We have seen awards that are wildly inconsistent. They are sometimes eye-wateringly high and often completely disproportionate to the actual harm suffered. Let me give a hypothetical example.”
“In here, people will keep wasting their breath accusing each other of being far right, so please, let us have a debate on immigration.”
“We live in a nation where there is a crisis in crime, a crisis in housing, a crisis in the cost of living and a crisis in government services. Into this mess we throw open borders to effectively unlimited numbers of unvetted arrivals and expect nothing to go wrong. In fact, we could go further and denounce anyone who warns that things will go wrong. This is not irresponsible; this is total and utter suicidal insanity. Dear colleagues, it is time to talk seriously about what are the real problems and solutions in this nation. If people in these Houses and the media are too busy trying to feel good about themselves, then it pains me deeply to say they will create the very crisis they claim they want to avoid. There will be more stabbings, rapes, arson attacks and riots.”
“There is a link between sticking our heads in the sand and migration making the crisis worse, because like it or not, there is a link between migration and crime. Many become uncomfortable hearing it but it is a fact. The Government withholds Irish data from us, but it makes no difference. We already have decades of data from across Europe and the results are clear. Unmanaged migration has resulted in increased crime levels in France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. Do I need to go on? If we lived in a stable, prosperous and well-managed nation, it would be fair to have a discussion weighing this danger of migration against its potential benefits to our economy, but we do not live in such a nation.”
“Thank you. But in the next breath, TDs fall over themselves to denounce the phantom far right in connection with the horrific burning of an IPAS centre in Drogheda only for it to emerge that the alleged arsonists were linked to organised crime and the attack was likely part of a gang feud. Many in the so-called Opposition were quick to point fingers at the Government for even hinting that immigration levels might be too high, accusing Ministers of pandering to the extremists. One Member even claimed there was a direct line between those comments and the arson attack. I say there is another direct line: a line between those who have disempowered our Garda and the rise of gangland violence, or a line between the chronic underfunding of law enforcement and the growth of organised crime.”
“I rise today to speak on the state of the immigration debate in Ireland or, more accurately, the debate about having a debate. It is progress, but not enough. In one breath, we are told to tread carefully when discussing the origins of the rapist of the ten-year-old girl in Citywest because the case is ongoing, but in the next-----”
“I commend the careful thought, time and consideration that has been given to ensuring the terminology change will not lead to any potential complications in ongoing legal cases and prosecutions. I also note the Bill's alignment with international obligations, particularly under the Lanzarote Convention and EU directive. That is important. I commend Senators Flynn, Higgins, Ruane and Black on their amendment No. 2 to expand the Long Title, which adds clarity and transparency and helps the public understand what this Bill is about. I fully support it. While the Bill may be technical, its impacts are deeply human. It reframes how we speak about crimes against children and how we prosecute them and must be accompanied by renewed commitment to victim-centred justice, which puts survivors and not systems first.”
“We cannot afford to have confusion in our courts. Guidance must be clear and issued promptly. Section 12 gives a three-month lead-in time for training, which is welcome. What will that training involve? Will it be trauma informed? Will gardaí, prosecutors and judges be trained, not just in the terminology but in the implications for evidence handling and victim support? If we are serious about protecting children, we must be serious about how we train those charged with delivering justice. I am glad of the consideration and maturity this Bill has shown in focusing not only on the language change but also on ensuring such a change will be enacted and made real.”
“I support the intent behind this Bill and I will speak plainly about why it matters, not just in legal terms, but in human ones. I welcome the decision to replace the term "child pornography" with "child sexual abuse material". This is not a cosmetic change; it is a moral correction. These are not images; they are evidence of crimes. They are not pornography; they are abuse. As such the language we use must reflect that truth. Survivors deserve legislation that names the harm as what it is. Words alone are not enough, however. Section 9 deals with the legal continuity and while I understand the need to preserve prosecutions under the old terminology, I ask the Minister of State how this will be communicated to the Judiciary, the legal profession and those working on the front lines of justice.”
“This Bill is not just flawed, it is dangerous, and I will not stand by while the State legislates for the commercialisation of pregnancy and motherhood.”
“Where in Bunreacht na hÉireann, the European Convention on Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is there a positive right to have a child? Reproductive autonomy is a negative freedom, not a contractual entitlement to another woman's body. Now, with the EU's anti-trafficking directive explicitly recognising the exploitation of surrogacy as a form of human trafficking, I ask whether the Attorney General has reviewed this Bill for compliance. The directive places a binding duty on member states to ensure no woman is coerced, deceived or exploited in surrogacy arrangements. Yet, this Bill currently offers less oversight of high-risk international surrogacy than for domestic arrangement. This is scandalous.”
“I have great concerns about the health committee's recent pre-legislative scrutiny report on the health (assisted human reproduction) (amendment) Bill. This report is not based on a general scheme but on the policy paper from the Department of Health. The committee admits this is not best practice. Why are we bypassing legislative norms for a matter as ethically complex and legally fraught as surrogacy? The committee invited only two stakeholder groups to make submissions, both of which are advocates for surrogacy. There were no dissenting voices, ethicists, women's rights groups or child welfare experts. Is that what inclusive scrutiny looks like? The report repeatedly references a right to procreate and a constitutional right to a private life and family life.”
“Even for those countries looking to become member states, it is sidelining legitimate concerns and silencing dissent. I call on the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality to make a statement on Ireland's position in this regard. We must not rubber-stamp this strategy. We must defend the rights of women, children and families. We must demand that the work of EU policymakers be grounded in evidence as opposed to ideology.”
“Even the Commission has admitted that its public consultation was not statistically representative, yet it has proceeded as if it speaks for all Europeans. It does not; it speaks for a small, overly active group pushing an agenda that is increasingly out of step with public sentiment and scientific caution. This strategy promotes self-ID without age limits, undermines parental rights and seeks to criminalise therapeutic due diligence with vulnerable children. It conflates hate speech with disagreement and seeks to embed gender identity into criminal law without clear legal definition. This is not equality; this is overreach. The EU is straying far beyond its limits and imposing ideological compliance on member states and civil society.”
“I add my voice to those who offered their sympathies on the death of Sr. Stan. I also congratulate our new President, Catherine Connolly. I wish to express serious concern about the European Commission's LGBTQ+ equality strategy for the period 2026 to 2030. This is not a strategy rooted in balance or democratic consensus; it is a document driven by ideology rather than evidence. It demands scrutiny. Let us be clear. The five main umbrella organisations consulted by the Commission are all recipients of EU operating grants under the citizens, equality, rights and values programme. That is not impartial consultation; it is institutional capture. Where were the voices of the women's rights advocates, detransistioners or those raising legitimate concerns about the impact of gender ideology laws on teens and children?”
“If they want to, they should go out and spoil their votes. It may be dissident, but it is peaceful. It may be controversial, but it will ultimately be constructive. It is their right and it is democracy. I also thank Senator Nelson Murray for highlighting people who give blood because I benefit from that blood three times a year. I also benefit from people giving iron. I thank the Senator for highlighting those people because they are keeping me alive.”
“We see a nation reaching a dangerous boiling point, while politicians take selfies at campaign concerts. For the first time in decades, we have a campaign with only two candidates. Political parties ordered their members to obstruct candidates of all view and backgrounds that are not their own. We have an election that, for many people who are struggling to live and to be heard, seems to be happening in some parallel fantasy version of Ireland. I commend all Irish people who will exercise their democratic right on Friday and vote, as they are legally entitled to do, in the privacy of the ballot box, for whomever they like or however they like. They can even vote for Jim Gavin, if they want to. However, I ask all those who do not see anyone on the ballot paper whom they believe in not to sit at home. They can still make their voices heard.”
“I will address the presidential election and the growing campaign calling for people to spoil their votes. Some have said that spoiling your vote subverts our democracy. I ask such people to look around the Houses they find themselves in today and to look at the portraits on these walls. Was it a subversion of democracy when 73 Irish MPs refused their seats in the British-approved Parliament to become the first Dáil? Was it a subversion of democracy for Parnell to obstruct proceedings at Westminster or when Daniel O'Connell stood for election knowing he could not take his seat? No. Such people are not speaking about democracy but about bureaucratic proceduralism. While they fret over rules and mean language, what do we see on our streets?”
“I know this because I have had children in care over the years and children who have gone into the aftercare system. This is not good enough, particularly for children who do not have anybody. The State is their guardian and is letting them down. This special emergency accommodation is not good enough. It is unregulated. We must do better by these children.”
“I thank the Minister. Unfortunately, none of my questions were answered but the most shocking line of that contribution is that 777 children are under the care of Tusla and 432 Ukrainian children have aged out. They are no longer in the care of or accommodated by the agency. It is only supporting five young people over the age of 18 today. That is absolutely shocking. I know one young man who, on the day he turned 18, was picked up by a taxi outside his accommodation and was brought to a hotel room with three other men in that room. That is not aftercare for children coming from war-torn countries; it is absolutely letting down the children we have brought in from war-torn countries. He has not heard from a social worker since that day. The agency is under pressure. I get that. Aftercare is really hard to get for these children.”
“How many are in each room? Do they have their own room? Are the staff Garda vetted? I ask the Minister of State to give us the numbers, the breakdown and the plan. These children deserve more than warm words. They deserve safety, stability and a future.”
“The question of aftercare is especially important as many of them may have to enter the aftercare system within months of arriving. We know that Tusla has a dedicated team for separated children and that foster care, residential settings and pledge family accommodation are among the options considered. What proportion of Ukrainian minors are in each category? What proportion are designated social workers? What proportion are in aftercare? These are basic questions yet they remain unanswered. We cannot protect what we cannot see. We cannot safeguard children whose whereabouts, legal status and care arrangements are unclear. We cannot claim to be a compassionate country if we do not treat these children with the same rigour and care we would demand for our own. How many are housed in special emergency arrangements?”
“We know from parliamentary replies that as of 25 January, 33 separated children seeking international protection were missing from Tusla care and that some of these children may have left the country to join family elsewhere. We also know that data on sexual exploitation risk is not centrally collated. That is an known unknown. That is unacceptable. The justice committee was recently informed that it is expected that 1,200 minor asylum seekers will be cared for by Tusla by the end of this year and that over half of these are from Ukraine. This number is likely to increase. A large number of these are 17-year-old boys who likely leave due to the fact that men between 18 and 60 are forbidden by martial law to leave Ukraine. By leaving at 17, they stand a chance by avoiding conscription.”
“Last week's murder of Vadym Davydenko in Donaghmede has made it harrowingly clear to us what happens when oversight is weak and accountability is absent. We cannot afford to repeat those mistakes. I am not here to cast aspersions on Tusla staff, many of whom work under immense pressure, but I am here to demand transparency. Without transparency, there is no trust, and without trust, there is no safeguarding. I want the Minister of State to delineate clearly what we know and do not know. What are our norms? What are our unknowns? What systems are in place to ensure that our blind spots are actively sought out and addressed?”
“This subject might be of interest to the children. There might be some unaccompanied minors from Ukraine here this morning. We are now over three years into the largest displacement crisis Europe has seen since the Second World War. Ireland, rightly so, opened its doors, but opening doors is not the same as ensuring safety. Safety begins with knowing who is in our care. How many unaccompanied minors from Ukraine have been taken into the care of Tusla since March 2022? How many of them are currently in aftercare? These are not abstract figures. These are vulnerable children and young people, many of whom have fled war, trauma and separation from family. We must be honest with ourselves. The State has a troubling history when it comes to institutional care.”
“We need to put children, not budget margins, first. We need a mindset that recognises that supporting families is not a cost but an investment in our future. Let us not pretend that this budget is progressive. It is not. It is a betrayal of promises that were made and it is a failure of vision. I will not stand by while Irish families are forced to choose between work and children, between rent and crèche fees, and between survival and dignity.”
“I hope this motion signals a change of heart in Sinn Féin because you cannot claim to be pro-family while undermining the very foundation of what "family" means in the Constitution. This motion calls for childcare at a cost of €10 a day, which is a reasonable and achievable goal. It calls for better pay and conditions for early years educators, which is long overdue. It calls for the rethinking of budget 2026, which is essential. I would go further by calling for a more ambitious model not just of childcare but also of support to the family. Such a model would include a stronger programme of public support and services, a tax cut for families, loans to parent families, and greater subsidies for all the essentials that families need. For such a model we need a total overhaul of our mindset, as politicians and as a nation.”
“It is the foundation of society and they legislate accordingly. Ireland, by contrast, short-changes parents by bypassing affordability and access while pouring billions of euro into unnecessary programmes such as a bloated NGO sector and an IPAS system which has been described by The Irish Times as the wild west of money making. We are told that budget 2026 allocates €1.48 billion to early learning and childcare, but what good is that if the average parent still pays nearly €800 a month out of pocket? Although Sinn Féin, which proposed this motion, is right to call out the Government's failure, I remind it and this House that Sinn Féin supported the 2024 referendums that endangered the constitutional definition of "family".”
“We are told that Ireland is one of the wealthiest nations in Europe. If that is true, how is it that Poland, a country with a lower GDP per capita , has this week passed legislation to eliminate income tax for families with two or more children? Why is it that Hungary, with far fewer resources, offers generous maternity benefits, housing benefits and tax exemptions for families who choose to raise children? Yet we have the gall to turn to the world and present ourselves as a modern economic success story. Given that hard-working parents in Ireland fret over each new pregnancy, thinking of how they will manage with new mouths to feed, it is a joke that we call ourselves a developed First World nation. The nations I have mentioned understand that raising a family is not a lifestyle choice.”
“I rise today in support of this motion not because I agree with the proposers on everything - far from it - but because on this issue they are right. Budget 2026 has failed Irish families. It has failed mothers and fathers who are working every hour they can just to afford the privilege of placing their children in the care they need so that they can work in the first place. It has failed our children, who deserve nurturing and support, not waiting lists. It has failed to deliver on the promise made by the Government to make childcare available at a cost of €200 a month. That promise now lies in tatters. Let us be clear. Some families pay over €1,000 a month for childcare. This is not a support system; it is a penalty for having children. In a country that claims to value the family, it is a disgrace.”
“Any government with any sense of decency would resign en masse of such outrages but I will not hold my breath in this Chamber for that to happen.”
“The response has been silence and denial. Let us look at Tusla's own statement. First off, it declines to mention how long the victim was missing from care. Second, it points out that the poor girl in question had significant behavioural issues, as if that would be any excuse for what has happened to her. How dare they. We seem to have no idea how many children are missing from Tusla care nor how long they have been missing. Likewise, we seem to have no idea who we are letting into this country and how long they are staying and where. When a real refugee from a warzone comes to our country, we put them in a room to be stabbed 100 times, and if they try to run away to the streets, they are raped. We now live in a nation where children are not safe under Tusla care and they are not safe outside of it either.”