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 19 of 26.
“I am not totally clear. The Tánaiste mentioned interactions with the ambassador but perhaps he could clarify exactly the extent of the diplomatic interactions he had with the US. I am specifically asking about the previous Bill, not this one.”
“My question is on whether the Tánaiste's Department has had engagement with or diplomatic representations from US counterparts around the exclusion of services from the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. Last week, the Taoiseach said in comments to the media that the aim of the OTB must be to pressure Israel to end the war in Gaza and not "disadvantage Ireland unduly". He made special reference to some US states that have anti-boycott legislation. Has the US been pressuring the Government on this? Are we only happy to fulfil our obligations so long as it costs us nothing? That is the context in which I ask this.”
“A question I asked earlier was about the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, the omnibus and simplification. We have heard so much today from Government representatives about simplification and competitiveness. My issue is that too much importance is being placed on competitiveness and too little on the human rights concerns we have about supply chains. It is comparable to the Minister of State's earlier answer to my question about sanctions. He talks about sanctions as if the only thing we need to consider is how it affects us. This is akin to asking how much a life costs. That is what I am hearing from the Minister of State when I hear that response.”
“All that would do is put in place the measures required by the ICJ ruling. We can dance on the head of a pin as to exactly what sanctions mean and whether removing privileges or meeting our legal obligations comprise sanctions but what I am talking about is the kinds of sanctions we have seen imposed on Russia, which would actually start to hurt Israel's economy. The other example is the Israeli bonds. These are all measures that would actually start to halt the genocide. Anything else is not a sanction.”
“I am just not sure whether this is a back and forth but, to respond to the Minister of State, what I said was that the EU-Israel association agreement is essentially a privilege. It is a trade advantage to Israel. My point is that, when we talk about sanctions against Israel for committing genocide, which the Minister of State's Government has recognised is happening, people associate that with the EU-Israel association agreement but all that would involve is the revocation of a privilege. The Social Democrats and I support sanctioning Israel at the domestic and EU levels for the genocide it is committing. I am absolutely crystal clear on that. I do not believe the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement does that. I also do not believe the occupied territories Bill, if passed with services included, would do that.”
“I set out a range of questions, which I am happy to go through again, but I also have a fresh one to put to the Minister of State. What is the Government's position on the European Parliament's case against the Commission, which alleges that the Commission overstepped and bypassed the Parliament with regard to the SAFE regulation?”
“Under current proposals, fewer than 1,000 companies will be bound by the directive, most supply chains will be out of scope and there is no requirement to implement climate action plans at all. How can we stand over this package? What has Ireland done to push back against this deregulation package? I look forward to answers to those questions from the Minister of State.”
“It appears that our competitiveness is apparently more important than human rights, employment rights and social spending. We in the Social Democrats are not against making compliance as simple as possible for small businesses. However, we are against deregulation that results in the continuation of slavery and human rights violations in our supply chains. I have been struggling for months to get a straight answer from the Government on whether the CSDDD will be protected. The assurances I got were minimal and swept away by an omnibus package being approved by the Council that Human Rights Watch said turned this supply chain law into window dressing at best.”
“Even when we go as far as suspending the EU-Israel association agreement, and the words of the Taoiseach in his opening comments were that Ireland has consistently said that all options must be considered up to and including suspension of the association agreement, that is simply the revocation of a privilege. It does not even amount to sanctions. All it does is level the playing field with our other trading partners. The fact that we would even consider capping it at the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement and not seek to go further with sanctions against Israel that mirror the sanctions imposed on Russia by European Union is galling. Regarding the omnibus, we hear frequently from the Government of the importance of simplification and how competitiveness trumps all.”
“We alone in Europe have a clear mandate from our population. It is clear from the report on the EU-Israel association agreement that Israel is in breach of its obligations. This is something the European Council has said, yet we, as a Union, have done nothing. In black and white, we now see the human rights requirements of EU trade agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. It is clear that Europe has failed the test of moral courage that will define these times, so what are we waiting for? Why can Ireland not be brave and take that first step? There is one other thing that I have repeatedly said and that I want to keep reminding people of.”
“This is pitting the companies that are fighting climate change, poverty and hunger directly against arms companies, including ones that are directly supplying Israel in its genocide in Gaza. What has Ireland done to push back against this subversion of truth and twisting of reality? Is it that bombs are sustainable, that guns and bullets are a green investment or that war will bring peace? I despair at the fact that while we have continued and increasingly strong words from the Government on Gaza, we have yet to see tangible actions. We have been told when we raise this issue that the Government strategy is to keep in step with Europe entirely and then to refuse to lead as a country. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is unacceptable when we consider the very unique solidarity of the Irish people with this cause.”
“We are framing the funding of arms manufacturers and research on how best to kill people as key to European prosperity. We hear from the most senior figures of the EU that what the European Union wants is a "common European defence system". I have heard empty assurances these past few months about the love that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have for our neutrality. This is cold comfort when the most powerful people in the EU are attempting to turn the European Union into a defence union. What has Ireland done to push back and to protect our sovereignty and neutrality within this context? Not only that, but last week, we heard at the defence committee that the EU will classify defence spending, that is spending on bombs, guns and missiles, as "sustainable finance".”
“I thank the Government for the briefing on the European Council. I particularly welcome the update on the work done on Ukraine and encourage more of that. I agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne's comments that we need to make sure it does not fade from view in the media and in our discussions. I want to focus my comments on concerns I have around three specific topics: European defence, Gaza and the omnibus. First, with regard to defence, I want to highlight in particular the words of the European Council President, António Costa, immediately after the European Council. The emphasis was not just on defence but on the EU as a defence alliance. The Council President celebrated how the EU is tying our actions on defence to the decisions and work of NATO as two sides of the same coin.”
“Once again, as in so many areas in the short life of this Government so far, we see the interests of business put ahead of those struggling most in our society. I ask it to please make supermarkets share their profits so that we can identify this problem fully and address it fully.”
“Ireland is a wealthy country but too often our people do not see that wealth in their lives. I say again that food is not an optional extra. It is not a luxury. In one of the world’s wealthiest countries we cannot tolerate price gouging being shrouded in secrecy and lack of proof. We must address it and do something about it. When it comes to issues that affect their lives so much, people ask me if the Government is incompetent or negligent? Is it that it does not know how to do anything about it or does it choose not to? In the sector I come from, rights and equality, we have a phrase: what we cannot measure we cannot change. So when the Government chooses to not measure the problem all I can conclude is that it is doing that on purpose so that it does not have to address it.”
“Charities and community organisations in my constituency, Dublin Rathdown, have said the number of people asking for help with food has risen drastically. People are choosing between heating and eating not because they have done anything wrong but because they have not been protected as consumers and as citizens. As my colleagues have pointed out, everyone is feeling the impact of these skyrocketing prices but those on the margins are being pushed ever closer to a cliff edge. Lone parents, pensioners, people with disabilities, those already in poverty are examples of people who are already vulnerable to those extra costs. They are the hardest hit in this crisis and we cannot let the issue go unaddressed while they continue to suffer and, in some cases, starve.”
“They have risen 36% in the last four years, adding €3,000 to the annual grocery cost of the average family in Ireland. One in four parents said they went hungry in the past year to feed their children; 15% of people in Ireland are living in forced deprivation and for renters that number is doubled. As we see the cost-of-living supports disappear for these families the cost-of-living crisis is going nowhere. What about that lived experience? We can quote statistics all day long but we must address the human impact of these numbers. I have spoken to parents who are struggling to put food on the table for their children. It is not just stress but also the shame associated with that. It is hard to fathom for those of us fortunate enough to never experience it. Grocery items are not luxury goods or optional extras.”
“Six weeks passed without incident or reduction, as has been the case every week since, while supermarkets have continued to operate business as usual. Without this information, we cannot address the potential price gouging we suspect may be happening in this sector. We know from the supermarket profits that are published that their profits are growing, we know that no action has been taken by the Government to stop profiteering in its tracks and we know from farmers and producers that while prices spiral that they are not getting a cut. When the Government gives an ultimatum and then does nothing, it sends a message that it will not level anything but strong words at big businesses. Let us look at the scale of the issue. We have the third-highest grocery prices in Europe.”
“I thank the Minister of State for being here today, although I must call out that it is a shame that more members of her Government do not choose to be here to discuss this very important topic because I, as a member of the Social Democrats, am very proud to bring forward this motion which really speaks to some of the challenges faced by the poorest in our society in simply making ends meet. I will make four points: the inaction we see from the Government on price gouging; the scale of this issue; the lived experience; and specifically those on the margins. First, on the shocking inaction on price gouging by the Government, two years ago the Minister of State, Deputy Neale Richmond, gave the supermarkets six weeks to bring prices down.”
“In the UK yesterday the parliament voted to proscribe a group called Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. This was prompted by activists spray-painting two RAF planes. Let us be clear, Palestine Action has never harmed anyone. It has certainly never dropped a 500 lb bomb on a seaside café full of innocent people, as Israel did this week. What we are witnessing is grotesque and dystopian. Is the Minister concerned at the rowback of civil rights in countries like America and England? Is he as appalled as I am by the perverse double standards that prevail?”
“I also welcome our distinguished guests. I wish to express the sympathies and condolences of the Social Democrats to the families in Donegal and of Brother Kevin. The official death toll in Gaza has now exceeded 57,000 people but we all know that the reality is much worse because tens of thousands of people are missing, presumed dead under rubble. As the Israeli Government ramps up its depraved slaughter of innocent civilians, western countries continue to sit idly by. Shamefully, the only action taken by many countries is to supply weapons to the Israeli Government and to vilify and criminalise people who are actually doing something to protest this slaughter. In the United States students and workers have been rounded up for joining protests against Israeli war crimes or simply blocked entry.”
“The people of Iran and Palestine have been targeted with a militarist agenda which has only increased the instability of the entire Middle East region. We must stand against military unilateralism no matter the perpetrator and end this onslaught of violence.”
“crimes of apartheid and genocide. The Minister of State spoke earlier about divisiveness in this House and that we should all be singing off the same hymn sheet. The difficulty I have with that sentiment is that those in government have the power to take the actions we need to see. Those options are to pass the occupied territories Bill in full, stop the facilitation of Israeli genocide bombs, end the endorsement of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, sanction Israel and use our diplomatic power as a member state at the EU level to end the EU-Israel association agreement and to introduce sanctions at the same level as Russia and to push for EU-level recognition of Palestinian statehood. These are not moral choices anymore; they are also legal necessities.”
“As a member state of the European Union which has uniquely experienced a great deal of violence at the hands of a foreign power in our history, we have a corresponding duty to stand up for people who face such violence and war. A report published just this week by Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation in Palestine explicitly states: ...where corporate entities continue their activities and relationships with Israel, with its economy, military and public and private sectors connected to the occupied Palestinian territory, they may be found to have knowingly contributed to a. violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination b. annexation of Palestinian territory, maintenance of an unlawful occupation and therefore the crime of aggression and associated human rights violations and c.”
“The puppet regime led by Mohammad Reza Shah was installed after the democratically-elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, attempted to form a sovereign-wealth fund by nationalising Iranian oil production. We must call out the human rights abuses on all sides of the current conflict and recognise that only through dialogue and multilateralism can we secure peace for the people of the region who have suffered through bombardment due to the political choices of their governments. The European Union's response to this crisis has been completely lacking. Senior members of the European Commission recently declared sympathy with Israel despite the fact it had chosen to bomb Iran seemingly out of the blue. Ireland has a special status.”
“Nor can liberty be enforced through the use of arms. The dangerous action of Israel and its ally, the United States, to bomb Iran has made the Cold War of the Middle East searingly hot. The choice to bomb nuclear facilities was a failed mission, but the ecological and human cost of this operation had it been successful would have been utterly catastrophic. This jingoistic mindset is a relic of the past and yet we see the Trump and Netanyahu Administrations use military action to bolster their domestic popularity. Again, we should remember how the Iranian Ayatollahs gained power. It was after a puppet regime was installed by the US and Britain. This brutal regime was deeply unpopular and collapsed in the face of such discontent.”
“This Act results in legal segregation which we all witnessed in apartheid South Africa. The legal status of Palestinians is determined purely on where they were born. In Acre in Israel they must be tried in a civilian court. In Ramallah in occupied Palestine they can be tried in a military court with no legal team to defend them or a translator. Many human rights and civil liberties advocacy groups describe this as a fundamental aspect of Israeli apartheid. The constant and systematic use of violence to maintain Jewish supremacy has created an environment of militarism which has spilled out across the region. Most recently this has been targeted at Iran on a spurious justification of a pre-emptive defensive strike. We must be clear that the Iranian regime is oppressive. However, people cannot be bombed into freedom.”
“Israeli citizenship law places far more restrictions on Arabs in obtaining Israeli citizenship. People from the vast majority of the Middle East such as Iraq, Yemen and the occupied territories are barred from gaining Israeli citizenship. The education system in Israel is split between Jewish, Jewish secular and Arab schools. Arab schools are systematically underfunded. Palestinians in Israel cannot leave even if they do not have citizenship as they can be barred from ever returning. Palestinians in the occupied territories may not drive or walk on certain roads and they have different coloured registration plates on vehicles. Many Palestinian political parties have been banned as they refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. In 2018, the Knesset passed the Jewish State Act, which allows for the creation of segregated spaces.”
“These actions have been done in the name of an ancestral claim to the land of Palestine as a 2,000-year-old promise. What about the Palestinians who lived there 70 years ago? We must show that human rights and the enforcement of the rules-based international order are felt by real people and are not simply concepts for discussion. We must ensure that nations who perpetrate, support or are silent in the face of genocide face consequences for their complicity. In Israel as well as occupied Palestine we see time and again the use of an apartheid system to ensure Israeli domination over Palestinians. In Israel, any Jewish person can immigrate to Israel and claim citizenship immediately, while Palestinians are refused the right to return to their family homes.”
“During this period mass expulsions of Palestinians were taking place at the hands of terror organisations such as the Haganah and the Irgun whose members formed the new IDF. This event is known as the Nakba as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from their land and those who chose to stay were murdered. The Nakba, meaning the catastrophe, was the destruction of Palestine upon which Israel was founded. More than 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed as people fled to refugee camps - some now famous, such as Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza, which has since been levelled and its residents killed, missing or ethnically cleansed. When we discuss the current ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the genocide in Gaza, we must remember the precursors to current events.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak to the incredibly problematic situation in the Middle East. Over the past 18 months, violence has erupted across the Middle East. However, today I wish to speak about the Middle East before October 2023 - the violence at the hands of Israeli colonists in occupied Palestine; the systematic functioning of Israeli apartheid; and how Palestinians are constantly facing state-sanctioned violence. We also need to consider the impact of the carte blanche which has been given to Israel in its acts of military aggression across the region. In 1948, Palestine was partitioned by the UN. This plan gave Israelis, who made up less than 30% of the population, more than half of the land of Palestine. This injustice led to the first Arab-Israeli war.”
“The Bill has the remit and jurisdiction to potentially deal with nursing homes. I encourage the Government to look at that as something that could bolster the remit of HIQA and give it the powers it needs. We will be supporting this motion. I commend the work of the Labour Party on bringing it forward. As with other Deputies, I share a real rejection of what the Government has put forward as a countermotion, because it simply fails to recognise the urgency and the importance of this issue.”
“These conditions are a recipe for disaster for people living in nursing homes who are then vulnerable to that poor treatment. We did not need an RTÉ programme to tell us this. Any healthcare assistant around the country could do exactly that. As this motion points out, 80% of nursing homes in the State are now in private hands. Without addressing the failure of the State to provide nursing home care, to provide for safe staffing levels and to take responsibility for the care of older people, we will not see the change that we need. I have mentioned one piece of legislation in previous debates and I want to raise it again. The Inspection of Places of Detention Bill has been delayed multiple times. It provides for what many people have talked about here today, namely the unannounced visits.”
“When care work is conducted on a for-profit basis, we encourage the work to be done to as close to the bare minimum of standards as possible. I have worked in both the private and public sectors - not in the care sector - but it is a simple fact that in a for-profit environment, the bottom line is it. Everything that is done in such an environment is for profit; it has to be because that is what the organisation is set up for. The public sector is a very different environment, where there is either a mandate or a job to do that is not driven by money. We have to get our heads around that when we are thinking about the provision of care in this State. People who work in nursing homes around the country tell us about the chronic short staffing, the lack of oversight and the lack of resourcing.”
“Trust in nursing homes has been lost. With everything that has come to light in recent months, the one overwhelming response, which really concerns me deeply, is that people are now afraid of nursing homes, or perhaps more afraid, because revelations like these have been coming out for decades. Old age should come with a security and a certainty that a person's needs are met, they are safe and they treated with dignity. It is the duty of policymakers to not only address the issues raised by the recent abuses which have come to light, but also to rebuild this broken trust. We need a system that is both safe and trusted. Without both, we are not delivering that vital security to people and their families. Unfortunately, as we have heard from many today, this is the natural product of privatisation of care.”
“Dublin city centre should be for everyone. The GPO, as a vital part of our history, should be for everyone. It should be somewhere that encourages people to engage with that history and that inspires art and culture, not somewhere that dismisses it as irrelevant or unprofitable.”
“They do not just talk about Garda numbers or street lighting but about the fact that there is nowhere for community or that is dedicated to community. Not only does this proposed development for O'Connell Street erase a key part of our history but it replaces it with just another shopping centre and it does not fix any of the issues a lot of people have around safety in our city. That brings me to my final question, which is what we want our city to be. When people look back on us in 100 years, we do not want them to say we knew the price of everything but the value of nothing. In every part of the city we are seeing privatisation - in healthcare, housing, public services, childcare and bin collection. That takes what should be for everyone and makes it just for some. That process is also incredibly difficult to reverse.”
“Many people criticise the city centre as being devoid of personality and of history. We must look at our city as not just somewhere for commerce, but somewhere for culture and history. There are plenty of retail and hospitality spaces in the city centre already. What there is a lack of is community space, cultural space, spaces that connect us as individuals and as a nation with our own history. It is not unique to Dublin to have historical sites in the middle of the city centre. What is unique is that we have not protected them. Other cities are able to balance that history with corporate and private interests and it is time we did that for our capital. I want to speak about safety because I have heard from countless people in my constituency, Dublin Rathdown, which is a Dublin suburb, about how they worry coming into Dublin city centre.”
“I thank Sinn Féin for bringing forward this motion. I am proud to stand beside Deputy Gannon, who speaks with such a strong voice for Dublin city centre. He always has done, in particular on issues related to how we make Dublin a place for all people and really protect our culture and heritage. I want to briefly cover three key points. The first is that the GPO is such a vital part of our heritage and a historical site of the greatest importance to the Irish nation. Second, when I am on the doorsteps and people talk about safety in the city centre, they also talk about the lack of space as a factor contributing to that. Finally, I want to reflect on the question of what we want our city to be. Is le gach uile dhuine ar an oileán seo ár stair, ár gcultúr agus ár n-oidhreacht.”
“What are the conditions to be met that will mean we can say goodbye to this abomination within our criminal justice system once and for all?”
“This system, which is now baked into our common law criminal justice system, presents a significant differentiation in terms of the conviction rate and the conditions for trial. In essence, it allows us, as a society, to maintain an abolition or undermining of the principle of the presumption of innocence within our courts system. That is hugely problematic. We will support the motions before us today but I assure the Government that we intend to come forward with ideas and proposals for how we can address the issues I have raised. I ask the Government to reflect on what conditions would have to exist in this State for the abolition of the Special Criminal Court to become a proposition it will consider. That is the question we need to answer. What types and levels of witness protection must we have in place?”
“Regarding DPP discretion, I am, unusually, in agreement with Deputy Ward in his observation that the DPP has way too much discretion in the referral of cases to the Special Criminal Court. Such referrals should be restricted to offences against the State or there have to be other parameters within which the DPP must operate in making referrals. We need greater independence in the process, with input from somebody who is not in the DPP's office. As Deputy Ward rightly pointed out, the DPP is not without interest in this process and must surely, therefore, be subject to monitoring in these instances. Overall, there are many ways in which the current system represents a fundamental human rights transgression.”
“All of that, however, is undermined by the fact we have created a parallel criminal justice system that has removed juries completely from the process. Another issue is the lack of division in the admission of evidence. When juries operate in a courtroom, an admission of evidence policy allows the judge to review that admission of evidence and determine whether it is appropriate for the jury to see it. In the case of the Special Criminal Court, a judge has to determine whether he or she can see the evidence. That is ridiculous. It is an absolute undermining of the principles of criminal justice I would expect to see applying to anybody who enters into our criminal justice system.”
“Other jurisdictions with much bigger problems to contend with still manage to uphold a jury court in these situations. There are plenty of new technologies, new methods and new criminal justice techniques that would allow us to have jury courts even in the face of jury intimidation. We will never build those competencies as a State if we do not practise them. It is hugely concerning that we are not facing the problem. This is not to say the jury system in the State is perfect. In fact, it is far from ideal that jurors experience difficulty with the process itself, the logistics of it, the wait times and so on, and even just that it can be such a life-changing experience. The State needs to support people in their service as jurors.”
“We have had this criticism levied at us, as a State, by the Human Rights Council and multiple UN treaty bodies. We had the Hederman report in 2002 and the Peart review in 2023, containing various recommendations for how the system could be reformed. My party and I align much more closely with the minority report of the Peart review, which looked at the human rights gaps. This system is a blemish on the State's human rights record. I move now to some of the specific provisions we are discussing that are particularly problematic. Jury intimidation is the premise on which the need for the Special Criminal Court is based. As a State, we will never deal with jury or witness intimidation if we do not abolish that court. In essence, we are just hiving off the problem instead of dealing with it.”
“What we have now, in essence, is two parallel criminal justice systems operating within this jurisdiction. This is a travesty of the rule of law. It is hugely problematic that two people can, in effect, be charged and tried for the same crime in two different courts, one with a jury and the other without, and one with a 65% conviction rate or thereabouts and the other with a 95% conviction rate. When people look at the arguments in this matter, they talk about the types of people who are tried in different courts. However, all of this undermines the primary principle of criminal justice, which is the presumption of innocence. I ask everybody to put themselves in the shoes of a person charged with a crime and expecting to be tried by a jury of his or her peers only to be faced with the Special Criminal Court. That is hugely problematic.”
“I agree with Deputy Gannon that this should be the last year this is ever debated in the Chamber - in fact, last year should have been the last time. From what the Minister said at the outset of his contribution today, even though he now supports the repeal of the Acts, that will not be ready by this time next year, so this will persist. Although we will support the motion this year, we will be coming forward with suggestions as to how we can deal with this in a more concrete way. What has happened is that 50 years ago, an emergency measure came in to deal with a particular set of circumstances. Not only has that essentially been codified into our criminal justice system, it has been expanded to not just deal with terrorism but to deal with gangland crime as well.”
“I ask again that the Government commit to a cross-party committee that will bring together everyone across the political spectrum to put forward a short-, medium- and long-term vision for the transformation to a public model of childcare provision in this country.”
“It will lock in cross-party support to transform childcare provision in the State. I urge the Government to consider it. As a State, we are missing a trick when it comes to artificial intelligence, AI. At a meeting today of the AI committee, of which I am a member, we spoke about the labour displacement we all know is coming down the tracks as a result of AI. Childcare is one of the sectors that is untouchable by AI. None of the caring professions, including teaching and childcare, can be automated. However, we need to value the childcare profession. Right now, we do not pay workers enough. The sector offers only precarious employment, mostly to women, including migrant women. We do not value it enough as a society to capitalise on the labour displacement we will see elsewhere.”
“While I appreciate the Minister of State's response, it is disappointing there is nobody here from the Department of children. I welcome the statistics she shared that show an increase in provision of places and the work being done to address the problems. However, as she knows, that increase is not keeping pace with the needs of families across the country, including in my constituency of Dublin Rathdown. We have seen tweaks in the childcare system, with attempts to address one shortfall here opening up another elsewhere. It is not working. We need radical reform. My colleague Deputy Farrelly's proposal, páistecare, is a plan for childcare that is like what Sláintecare was supposed to be for the healthcare system. It is a transformational approach that will supersede shifts and changes of policy and approach under successive governments.”