Sinéad Gibney
Dublin Rathdown · Social Democrats · Ireland
“Unfortunately, those are still not entirely clear. Although the Windsor Framework did look to enshrine that policy of no diminution of rights and the non-divergence of rights on either side of the Border, that has not been clear in how it is going to play out.”
“I want to raise one specific sector. Within my portfolio, the culture sector is a good example of where we could see a much better offering in the joining together of the two economic activities. For example, we have a very vibrant production sector for film and television.”
“The other word that is important to bring into any economic discussion and fiscal discussion around a united Ireland is "holistic" because, unfortunately at times, I see the Government looking at the economy as a discrete part of society and neglecting things that fall outside of economic discussion, economic imperatives, and policymaking…”
“There are ways that we can see how our governance of this jurisdiction can be improved simply by the opportunities that will be presented by opening up constitutional change and the discussions that we are all going to have about how we govern ourselves right now and how we may govern an entire island of Ireland.”
“When the Minister of State referred to office roles in Brussels, was he describing roles in NATO headquarters? The international forces the Minister of State is describing are exactly like the coalition that invaded Iraq.”
“I look forward to coming back to the topic of the triple lock in a few questions' time. I have read with extreme concern the reports over the past week on the lack of support provided by the Department of Defence to Women of Honour, whose members are participating in the Defence Forces tribunal.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,287 lines we hold for Sinéad Gibney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 26.
“While that sort of activity is to be welcomed, I do not know how the Government can stand over celebrating Safer Internet Day when it cannot even deal with a safe Internet. It cannot hold big tech to account and actually provide a safe Internet. I am crystal-clear on exactly what this Government needs to do to deal with big tech. Our Government needs to grow a pair. It needs to regulate, enforce, prosecute and make the Internet safer. I welcome this Bill and commend it but we need so much more from the Government.”
“Everybody is paying the price. The worst part of all this is that these are technologies, particularly AI, which could bring so much amazing benefit to society. Unfortunately, the more we see products like this unleashed on society, and we will see more and more of them, that trust will be eroded and AI as a tool will be completely undermined. We will start to see the inequality divide online increase further, as people pay to access tools that they can trust and will work for them, while everybody else just gets to dive around in the cesspit that is the Internet. Today is Safer Internet Day, the theme of which is "AI Aware: Safe, Smart, and in Control". There was an event in the Department of justice to mark the day, at which members of a youth panel spoke to the issue.”
“We need to deal with online platforms, e-commerce, or whatever we want to call them, and the way in which the online harms that are proliferating on these companies' websites are reaching into the lives of every single individual in society and that governments and regulators across the globe have no control and no ability to hold them to account. We get messages that either the regulatory and legal framework does not exist for them to do that, that when the framework does exist it is too hard to enforce, or that when they want to enforce it, it is not working and the companies do not pay heed to fines or whatever else. None of this is good enough. I do not care if it is about jobs, tax, or whatever it is; the Government needs to step up because these companies are running rings around it. Every day people are paying the price.”
“It is exactly this behaviour that fuels the epidemic of sexual and gender-based violence which we know is such a problem in this world. Yet, what do we do? We see our governments wringing their hands and, again, talking about how bad it is. Not even that; we had one Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, blame the user. He does not even go as far as blaming the tech platforms. Deepfakes are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to online harms. This is the other thing I want to speak to. This is one area which is hugely problematic, has rightly caused huge consternation in society and has provoked reactions from across this House, the media and society. This legislation is to be commended as it seeks to address a specific piece of it but even if we fix this, it will not deal with the core issue, which is big tech.”
“It has an immediate effect on people but it is not instantaneous because it will stay with them, follow them around, affect their mental health and their life in ways we cannot even imagine unless we are victims of this crime. I also wish to speak to something that is under-reported, namely, the societal impact of this. Not only is this a product of the misogynistic society we are in but it is something which also fuels it. We are seeing, for example, reports that younger female teachers in schools across Ireland are increasingly experiencing misogyny from their young students. This is exactly the kind of tool and behaviour which fuels younger members of our society into thinking that it is okay to objectify and demean women, and to dehumanise them in this way.”
“As Deputy Cairns said in the House a couple of weeks ago, if we had a warehouse on Pearse Street alongside the X offices here which was producing CSAM and IBSA at the same level as it is being produced online, it would have been shut down and prosecutions would have been brought forward. However, because it is on the Internet, we do not see that same response. We do not see anything that actually deals with the crimes that are being committed and with the regulatory transgressions being committed by these companies. What is the harm that people are experiencing? It is devastating to the people who are experiencing this child sexual abuse material and image-based sexual abuse. It is a violation of their rights, dignity, privacy and autonomy.”
“I read a headline today that Coimisiún na Meán is horrified. Investigations are under way by An Garda Síochána. The European Commission is investigating the risk element. What is not happening is any meaningful results for those people who have been harmed by this product. We have had geoblocking from Grok itself, which is, first of all, too little and far too late, but is also something that anybody with VPN can get around in a minute so it is not actually doing anything. The nudification app still works. People can still abuse through image-based sexual abuse and child sexual abuse material. Other jurisdictions have gone further. We have seen the X offices in Paris raided by the French Government, which I welcome.”
“At the moment, that copyright only extends to commercial activities like singing. What we want to put forward is a copyright law that will protect people's likeness, features, voices and bodies. It is legislation that is being pursued in Denmark and we believe it is another way we can respond to the crisis in which we now find ourselves. Let us recap on that crisis and what has happened with Grok over the last number of months. An unsafe product, a nudification app, was unleashed on the market. That is the marketing terminology but the legal terminology is image-based sexual abuse, IBSA, and child sexual abuse material, CSAM. That is what this product has done. What we have seen in response from governments and regulators across the globe, including our own, is absolutely shocking. We have seen outcry and hand-wringing.”
“I thank Sinn Féin for bringing forward this Bill and Deputies Carthy and Devine for the work they have put into it. I also welcome to the Gallery those people who are visiting to listen to this debate. I thank the Government for not opposing this Bill. I welcome that but it is, of course, the very least we can ask. This is a Bill that makes sense. We know Coco's Law has worked over the last number of years. This simple amendment will allow it to keep pace and add some other fixes around access to justice, which are also very important. Essentially, it builds on good law by keeping it up to pace. The Social Democrats will also be introducing legislation that looks at the copyright angle of this area and will allow people to copyright their own personal identity.”
“A lack of segregated cycling infrastructure in areas with sections that are not connected creates unstable, unusable routes. A lack of education on the rights of cyclists for other road users and sometimes the rights of pedestrians is particularly prevalent. As has been raised by the Dublin Cycling Campaign and the Love 30 campaign, speed restrictions due to council-by-council assessment create inconsistency that also proves dangerous for cyclists on our roads. If we are serious about road safety and active travel, then co-ordinated planning and connected infrastructure funding and education on the rights of different categories of road users are all imperative. There is a lot to be positive about with the current road safety strategy, but to see further progress in this area, we must listen to pedestrians and cyclists.”
“As we seek to encourage active travel as a viable alternative to driving, it is imperative that we address persistent safety issues. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists must be factored into our shared use of the roads. Funding for active travel has not been increased with inflation and we are seeing the cracks and shortcomings as a result of this. As a mode of transport, we have seen huge uptake of cycling over the last number of years. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has overseen transformative cycle infrastructure implementation. I commend it on its leadership in this space. On weekends in my local areas, I see families with cargo bikes travelling to places like Marlay Park, to sports training, and to visit friends and families by bike, which is all great, but this usage is curtailed by hazards and sometimes by real risk.”
“I share my sympathies and condolences with everybody involved in the terrible accident this morning on North Earl Street. I am contacted regularly by my constituents in Dublin Rathdown about road safety issues. I will focus my comments today on cycling. There are so many topics I want to talk about but this is to get the best use out of my time. People contact me about things like the need for pedestrian crossings, new developments in Carrickmines, the need for traffic calming measures near schools in Churchtown, and concerns about the speed of traffic in particular residential areas in Ballinteer and Stillorgan, but the reality is that people overwhelmingly want to opt for active travel like walking and cycling.”
“On defence without peacebuilding, you can end conflicts and ensure peace and human rights are championed, which builds the off-ramp for war-torn regions. This is concerning for me because earlier this week at the European affairs committee, I pressed Commissioner Serafin on this. It is clear to me that Europe is investing in war and military spending. All of the mechanisms that are available to member states and all the ways we are offering opportunities for development, employment and growth are around the military. There is a conflict there. I appreciate and am heartened by the Minister of State's comments, the connection he made between the two and how he will champion this during the Presidency. I look forward to seeing that work and co-operating with him on it.”
“It is so important we continue to maintain an emphasis on peacekeeping and not shift to peacebuilding and peace enforcement, which is a threat and is linked to development aid. I would love to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on that.”
“I agree. It is great to hear that it will be a point of focus for the Minister of State in the second half of this year, when we have the opportunity during the Presidency of the European Union. As he referenced, which I also did in my question, this is obviously within the context of USAID being cut, for example. That is really just storing up problems. It is the definition of storing up problems to cut aid in the way we are seeing this happen across the globe. I question the unconditional aid piece. One of the other issues we are having across Europe is the fact that it is not being given unconditionally. That is problematic. Does the Minister of State see a connection between this drop in aid and the increase in defence spending? There is a connection in potential member states.”
“I had not prepared for this as such but I am keen to get the Minister of State's thoughts on it. It is about whether the Department will prioritise overseas aid and development as a key topic during the EU Presidency. I am sure this is a topic he will happily speak to for two minutes, particularly in the context of decreasing overseas development aid budgets across Europe and the impact those cuts are having on communities across the world.”
“I know the Minister of State agrees with me that humanitarian aid should not be used as a bargaining chip to trade away the rights of a struggling people. I am asking that this conviction be expressed by the Department on this specific trade deal. It is clear that this trade deal has serious flaws and has not complied with the ruling of the Courts of Justice. What are the Department and the Government going to do about it? I appreciate the Minister of State's stance on the delicacy.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I would like the Irish Government to champion a pathway for a referendum on self-determination, something which was promised after independence from France decades ago and never actioned. Instead, it seems like the world is keen to move on and ignore it if it means cheaper Moroccan imports and co-operation on migration policy. The Commission's proposals for delivering on tangible benefit as part of this deal include investment in Moroccan companies in Western Sahara, essentially financially incentivising continued occupation which features well-documented human rights abuses and surveillance of Sahrawis. Another aspect of their proposal is to deliver tangible benefit, as I mentioned, via humanitarian aid to Sahrawi refugee camps.”
“It is incredible to me that we have a trade deal that has been in provisional application since October, yet there is no clarity on how it is better than the previous version of the deal, which the courts ruled against. I welcome Ireland registering those concerns. Morocco enjoys preferential tariffs while the Sahrawi people in Western Sahara continue to be dispossessed of their land and occupied.”
“I thank the Minister of State. It is comforting to hear that there is activity on the part of the Government on this. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of the Sahrawi people had to be sought or that there had to be a tangible benefit for them. Instead of seeking their consent, the EU committed to provide tangible benefit to them and to a regular control mechanism to evaluate the benefit required for implicit consent. Can the Minister of State provide clarity on that control mechanism in the deal? What is Ireland doing? The Minister of State stated that we are seeking updates and so on, but I ask him to seek that clarity and ensure it is robust enough to uphold the rights of the Sahrawi people or guarantee them that tangible benefit in line with the ruling.”
“The previous EU-Morocco trade deal was struck down by the European courts because it was found to violate the rights of the Sahrawi people. This new trade deal has entered provisional application, despite persistent concerns around the involvement of the Sahrawi people, and the lack of engagement with or tangible benefit for them. What is the Department's stance on the deal and its compliance with the ruling of the Courts of Justice of the European Union?”
“I mentioned the "Prime Time Investigates" report that, not too long ago, exposed how we are allowing third-party companies to track us using our data. Now we face a situation where that data is not even illegal to collect and sell. I do not disagree with the Government that we have huge issues with the enforcement of these regulations. What I disagree with is walking away from those regulations and seeking to get rid of them instead of properly enforcing them.”
“It is just misleading. He said in the same breath that it is about relieving the regulatory burden. He must admit that what he is doing is removing regulations and, therefore, removing rights and protections. He referred to stakeholders in his first contribution. Who are those stakeholders? I am fairly sure they are businesses and industry. My problem with the governance we are pursuing in this area is that it is completely driven by the Department of enterprise. It is not considering the broader societal impacts of online and digital harm while we are all experiencing those impacts. We are potentially allowing companies to self-certify their AI in lower-risk categories. We are potentially allowing companies to collect personal data that previously was protected.”
“I am really concerned that at a time when we should be shoring up protections and rights, they are being totally ignored. The conversation is completely about how to remove rules. We are told that this is about simplification and harmonisation and that they will be achieved while balancing rights. Those rights are always the secondary thought. Unfortunately, I do not see any balance. Digital regulation and our digital rights cannot be construed as two separate issues. That does not work because the regulations exist in the first place to protect those exact rights. There are not adequate safeguards in the proposal from the Commission. What will the Minister of State do to ensure that is addressed in any digital omnibus package?”
“I am really frustrated by the Minister of State's reply, as I was by a similar answer given by his colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, at the AI committee last week. The dogs in the street know big tech cannot be trusted. We have all endured the Grok scandal over the past number of weeks. A recent "Prime Time Investigates" programme reported on how our location data is being sold. Despite all of that, the Government remains stubbornly committed to backing omnibus proposals that give the very tech companies that are harming us more of our data and subject them to less regulation and oversight. There seems to be a disconnect between the rights and protections of citizens and the push for deregulation. We are not seeing any critical engagement on how this will impact ordinary people.”
“There is a lot of talk right now about online safety and regulation. The overwhelming sentiment from the public is that we need to tackle it head on and not be cowed into inaction by big tech. Yet the digital simplification packages as currently drafted stand to erode people's rights, not support them. Is the Department concerned about the package? What steps is the Minister of State taking to raise these concerns at EU level?”
“It is time for us to finally view housing in this country as a public good and a human right, not as an asset to be leveraged in every which way to the detriment of real people. There are no safeguards against constructive evictions so that landlords can reset to a market rent. We know we need a radical reset in housing. I do not see how a plan based around allowing rents to be hiked with every new lease delivers on that much-needed reset.”
“It is leaving people in jobs they want to escape and limiting their educational opportunities, all because those who have somewhere are so desperate to keep a roof over their heads and trying to find somewhere to rent at an affordable rent is nigh on impossible. This Bill represents a false solution. That is crystal clear in the simple fact that part of the goal of this Bill is to allow rents to continue to rise. We are faced with market-driven solution after market-driven solution. I know we are given the message back that we do not see any place for market-driven solutions, but that is not the case. We do see a place for market-driven solutions but the Government seems to be blinded by them alone.”
“People are putting off having children because they do not have room in the family home. They cannot imagine raising a family when they could be pushed out by rent increases or evictions at any time. The sense of hopelessness felt by those stuck in this situation is palpable. People tell me about all the things they cannot do and all the ways that their lives are impacted. It is leaving people in unsafe living conditions with damp and mould. There are cases where people cannot escape a bad family situation because they have nowhere to go and no resources to pay nearly €2,000 per month for the most basic option available in the private market.”
“Setting rent anew with new leases means properties that have had their already very high rents capped at a 2% increase per year will see rents sky-rocket. Already in my constituency, if you search for Dundrum on daft.ie , the lowest cost two-bedroom property is priced at €2,500 per month. The lowest priced one-bedroom property is €1,700. I cannot imagine how a young family or working professional, or anyone but the wealthiest in society, can survive and plan for their future while paying €30,000 a year in rent. People have contacted my office desperate for help, unable to dream of getting to the top of the housing list. Spiralling rents are leaving them trapped in homelessness. Níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin, ach tá na daoine seo fágtha gan tinteán ar bith. Grown-up children are stuck in their family homes and unable to grow.”
“I echo my party colleague's baffled and confounded response to this legislation. It fails to acknowledge the absolutely dire situation that so many renters are in, the crisis and emergency that this Government has created and the failure of the Government to provide any solutions. The system is pricing people out of renting and this Bill is only going to make matters worse. In my constituency, grown-up people are stuck in their family home, unable to grow any further in their own lives. This Bill represents a false solution to the problems faced by renters. It is a reality we have heard at committee and from all the experts that if this Bill passes, the sky-high rents in this country will continue to rise.”
“Can I continue, please? If this can save lives, make a meaningful contribution to the public interest or help in the delivery of health services or essential public services, I am all for it. I am all for creating a regulatory framework that will facilitate that but what we do not have is exactly that. A regulatory framework is absent; therefore, trivial and mass-scale commercial drone usage is what we will experience. This Bill is a positive step - again, I commend Deputy O'Gorman on bringing it forward at this time - towards protecting our communities and plugging the gaps in regulation which have been left unaddressed for far too long. I welcome this Bill and the debate today.”
“Then I have correspondence from three individual local residents. The first states: While the technology may seem innovative, it raises serious concerns for our community. Drones could negatively impact noise levels, privacy, and safety, particularly in residential areas. They also risk disrupting wildlife and the character of our village. I believe there are better ways to support local businesses and improve services without compromising the quality of life in Dundrum. The second states: Drone activity threatens the peaceful environment needed by local families, children, and those seeking quiet. The final one states: Repeated, noisy drones operating in residential areas to deliver a cup of coffee is absolutely NOT a good idea. Trivial uses of drones by a few creates an unacceptable environment for the many.”
“This certification was set up to accommodate more time-limited commercial drone activity such as drone use for mapping and surveying. There are many more parameters that need to be taken into account when considering drone activity for frequent deliveries over dense residential areas. The parameters that need to be taken into account include: - noise nuisance - safety issues - privacy concerns We are firmly of the belief that part of the oversight of such activity should fall under the remit of the local authority. The IAA is wholly unsuited to determine the effect of such activity on the residential amenity of affected homes in a particular location. We are aware that there is no reference to drones in the DLR County Development Plan, the Dundrum LAP, or indeed in any of the National or Regional Planning Frameworks and Strategies.”
“I agree with Deputies who have said this will simply grow. As Deputy Donnelly said, for as long as regulation does not exist, this Chamber will get more and more full every month as Members discuss this issue. I want to include in my contribution some of the messages I received from my constituents. These are the people and community groups who will deal directly with the impact of unregulated drone delivery every day of their lives. They are left powerless by the current gaps in legislation, which this Bill seeks to address. A message from the Roebuck Residents' Association states: We wish to make the point that the Irish Aviation Authority, the IAA, does not sufficiently take the impact of this type of activity on residential amenity into account when awarding such licences and certificates.”
“Everyone should be able to raise issues they experience with noise and privacy concerns in a clear and effective way, and there needs to be a mechanism which allows those issues to be heard and taken seriously by the appropriate authorities. It is clear from the experiences of people who live in other parts of Dublin - specifically Dublin 15, where these drones have already been in operation for a number of years - that they do not have a voice within this regulatory process. The national policy framework for unmanned aircraft systems posits the implementation of drones as something economically beneficial but fails to recognise the slippery slope that this technology represents and the issues that are already affecting communities and which will continue to do so unless we see real regulation.”
“Tá muid ag iarraidh a bheith níos fearr ó thaobh pleanála de inár bpobail agus tá fadhb ollmhór nuair nach féidir é sin a dhéanamh mar gheall ar easpa reachtaíochta. The lack of regulation has left communities powerless to oppose the use of commercial drone delivery. In my constituency, local residents have contacted me in huge numbers. Other contributors have spoken of balance and said people are expressing different views but in my office the response to drones is overwhelmingly negative. Local residents are absolutely opposed to the development of a commercial drone delivery depot in Dundrum. What has deeply frustrated them in their efforts is that there is a vacuum of regulation and no avenues for them to raise their valid concerns and objections to drones flying over their homes and communities.”
“The immediate thought might be that, from an environmental point of view, fewer cars on the road doing deliveries can be a benefit of the drone. Then you start to dig into it and find 70% of deliveries are done by bike, which are active transport, do not have carbon emissions and are carbon-neutral; therefore, you are not getting much gain from it. We do not know what the effect is on biodiversity. We just heard examples from Deputy Coppinger's constituents, including a near-collision with a bird. More than that, noise and air pollution come from this and what that will mean for nature and our planet is something we cannot play around with. We certainly cannot leave it as a guinea pig to be tested on. Ba chóir go mbeadh muid in ann guth a bheith againn maidir leis an méid atá ag tarlú díreach os ár gcionn.”
“We want to see evidence-based decision-making and not a business-focused mindset from the Government when it comes to regulation. We have to make regulation work for business, but we do not take into consideration in a balanced way the concerns of the community. So many issues are brought into focus when we talk about drones. They affect our privacy, noise, environment, the economic picture, labour, health and so much more. We also have to see it well sequenced. We are in a vacuum now because of the lack of action from the Government. That results in a community that is essentially a Petri dish, being tested and trialled without the safety of regulation. I will take one example from the list I have provided: environment. We were kicking this about in the office when we were researching my contribution.”
“I welcome this incredibly timely Bill from Deputy O'Gorman on the regulation of drones because it is long overdue. I share others' concerns that the Government does not agree that it is timely, given that it is kicking it down the road. I want to address the kind of message I get back when I push for greater regulation across the tech space more broadly. I am thinking of online safety and the online platforms, which need to experience greater regulation, similarly in AI, particularly at EU level. Here we have a specific technology being operated within a regulatory vacuum. We in the Social Democrats support business. We support small business, innovation and enterprise. What we do not support is this vacuum of regulation.”
“Many recommendations of the justice committee are not implemented, and key safeguards are still absent. Age assessment provisions are unclear and missing key principles of child age-assessment safeguarding. Vulnerability assessments are only preliminary and not ongoing. Oral appeals are allowed only if deemed necessary. There is a rake of concerns coming through from the experts in this field who deal with international protection on a daily basis. The reality is that we do not have to be like this. We could go in the other direction. We might look at Spain. It is naturalising people who have been there. It is welcoming the concept of international protection and what it does for an ageing and growing population, which is exactly what we should be doing.”
“The letter and the spirit of this legislation are about curbing the right to claim asylum. Even if the Minister does not believe us in the Opposition, he should believe civil society. There are very well-documented and well-articulated concerns, which include that there are significant gaps remaining in this legislation that undermine the scrutiny within the legislative process. We know that because, for example, there is now nothing remaining on family reunification and that is just not good enough with such an important piece of legislation. The detention of an unaccompanied child will be permitted under this legislation. That is absolutely incredible. This Bill creates overarching and disproportionate power of the Minister across the protection process. The information provision to the applicant is unclear.”
“Not only that, it is choosing to interpret it in such a way that this legislation that will make our system one of the most severe in Europe. It is not surprising to me because, for multiple governments now, we have seen that they, as governments, have had to be dragged kicking and screaming or pushed by the courts to recognise any rights within the international protection space. We have never, ever got to a point of meeting either our domestic or international obligations, and we certainly have never got to a humane and dignified system that recognises the difficulty people experience when they are in this system. Instead, under the banner of efficiency, speed and fairness, we are seeing a system that is going to dehumanise people, detain them and further take away their basic rights because that is the direction in which we are headed.”
“In his opening comments, the Minister said that the Government fundamentally believes in the right to claim asylum, yet, this legislation brings us in exactly the opposite direction as a State. That has been the case since we have seen this Government take office, where we have simply seen an attack on international protection as a concept, and language and rhetoric that demonises people in their most vulnerable moment, despite our history and our own experience as a people. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Minister is jumping on this opportunity. We did not have to take on all of the modules of the EU migration and asylum pact. We know that. We were an exception, and this Government chose to do it.”
“These are the people who have the least power to insulate themselves from this cost-of-living crisis that we are all experiencing, yet this year they are facing the brunt of it. We can do better and we must do better for people with disabilities. This is what we are asking today and every day, and we will continue to fight for as long as it takes to achieve true equality for those among us with disabilities.”
“It is not alarmist when it is lived experience. We know the reasons people with disabilities are more likely to be in poverty. People with disabilities face additional daily costs when it comes to medication, specialist equipment, adaptation of homes and everything they need to be able to live their lives in dignity. We are one of the worst in Europe when it comes to participation of people with disabilities in the labour market, as the Minister has acknowledged. The lives of disabled people in this country are full of additional costs that most of us cannot imagine on a day-to-day basis, and an exclusion from the labour market that makes it even more impossible to survive in dignity.”
“I can tell him that the disability community in Ireland are exhausted and fatigued with consultation, sick to the teeth of hearing about the next report which is going to tell them what they need when they already know what they need. They have been very clear about it and the Social Democrats have been very clear about it. This is a gap and I fully acknowledge that the Government talks about this being a priority. I recognise that the Tánaiste has created the specific group that he has, and that it is reaching into every Department. I recognise all of that, but delivery is not happening. The starkest example of that is budget 2026, in which disabled people were left €1,400 short. They are living that right now. They are living the heating and eating choice. I do not apologise for that language.”
“We have just about moved ourselves to a medical model in certain parts of our policy-making for people with disabilities. What we actually need, when we think and talk about disability, is a rights-based model. What that means is that all of us in this country have the right to work, the right to live, the right to privacy and the right to health. When we recognise that we all have those rights, we then identify the shortfalls in certain groups meeting those rights. Then we realise that, as a State, we have an obligation to remove those barriers and to bring people to the same level so that they can access and participate in society in the same way as everybody else. The Minister's comments today are littered with policy after report after consultation.”
“This motion is about dealing with the present crisis, which has left so many people unsure of how they will heat their homes, pay for medication or travel to appointments. It is about having a real plan and ambition to make the long-term changes that we need to guarantee people equality. I do not apologise for using that language. The Minister has accused us of using alarmist language. He told us to be careful about using alarmist language when we talk about people choosing between heating and eating. It is not alarmist to the people whose lived experience is choosing between heating and eating. However, I am really glad that the Minister raised the topic of language because in this State we have seen a charitable model of disability dominate policy delivery for people with disabilities.”
“People with disabilities in this country consistently live in poverty and experience financial struggles much more than the general population, as we have heard in detail from my colleagues this morning. Addressing the cost of disability is not giving something extra for people with disabilities as an act of generosity or pity. It is about creating a more equal Ireland and realising the rights of a group of individuals who face huge barriers to the realisation of those rights. It is about showing people the respect that they deserve as valued members of society. We need to see the cost of disability addressed in the long term. People with disabilities should not live with a tax on their lives. They deserve the same standards of living and care, and the same chance to thrive, as everybody else.”