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 21 of 26.
“Some of the Government spokespeople will talk about the difficulty that might present but again, it is exactly the time to commit to that and make sure we work within the UN structures rather than stepping away from them at this crucial time of volatility on our globe. I thank the Tánaiste for his engagement on the issue of human rights monitoring. We will be bringing forward suggestions on how we can satisfy that.”
“I thank the Tánaiste. On the dysfunctionality he has described in the UN, this is exactly the time for us to recommit to our engagement with the UN, to help resolve the difficulties we are experiencing at Security Council level. As we have been at pains to point out throughout this debate, and will continue to highlight, the triple lock can be satisfied by the UN General Assembly. I had answers from the officials of the Department of Defence to that effect, which confirmed that the General Assembly can satisfy it. The same thing was put out in the literature on the Lisbon and Nice treaties.”
“The other organisations the Tánaiste mentioned do not have the primary purpose of peacekeeping and therefore do not apply the same level of human rights monitoring. Even in respect of the UN Charter, which the Tánaiste mentioned, he is not talking about applying it by the letter. He is talking about the principles, which once again falls short of that human rights monitoring. I welcome the opportunity to engage on this.”
“----which of course is not covered by the triple lock anyway. The Tánaiste mentioned the triple lock not being the norm in other neutral countries, and once again I say that they have not had the same journey to neutrality that we have had. They did not have the same engagement with the Nice and Lisbon treaties which required us to enshrine the triple lock for that purpose. I will go back to the main point of the question today, which is around human rights monitoring. I welcome the principles the Tánaiste has outlined such as consent for nations. They are great principles but they are not monitoring. They absolutely are not active monitoring. The only organisation that does active monitoring is the UN.”
“We have discussed the issues pertaining to the abolition of the triple lock many times. I am reading the draft Bill which seeks to do this. I am struck by the apparent lack of human rights monitoring mechanisms which could be included as safeguards for deployment, given the removal of the human rights monitoring at UN level. What human rights monitoring, if any, is envisaged to ensure missions in which we take part are human rights compliant?”
“While this Government may argue that the EU will be able to push for a better approach, its track record at EU level on taking the lead on human rights is poor. These are the reasons I will not be supporting this motion.”
“I cannot see how any agreement with a country that imprisons political opposition, tortures prisoners and where freedom of speech and assembly are severely restricted can have the human rights guarantees we need. You do not have to be a bleeding heart liberal to think that deporting people to a country where their fundamental freedoms and rights are denied is wrong. We have heard from the Minister of State that human rights protections will be paramount for the European Commission in these negotiations, but this is the same Commission that is pushing back against eradicating slavery from our supply chains, that is trying to use cohesion funding for arms manufacturers and is failing to respond to the genocide in Gaza.”
“Where is the analysis and assessment of how the increasing speed of the process is not impacting on efficiency - that is one question - but on the rights of people to claim asylum in this country? What about the thousands of people who we are not offering accommodation to, and the many people who are languishing in direct provision and staying in accommodation much longer than they should in conditions that provide no family privacy, and no ability or means to even cook their own food or practise their culture or religion? What about those issues? Why are we focusing our energy on this? I will speak to the human rights concerns I have in respect of this motion.”
“When we have significant priorities both here and at EU level that are falling by the wayside, I cannot see how we can justify spending time and energy on negotiations when other EU states can simply turn around and ask, "Why should we listen to you? You do not have immigration from Kazakhstan". I will outline some of the things we should be looking at within our international system. How about gender-specific accommodation for those who are here seeking international protection who are the victims of sexual violence? What about the vulnerability assessments and the opt-out system introduced a number of years ago, which has issues around accessibility and language capabilities and simply does not meet the requirements we have signed up to under international law? What about the interpreting services and legal services?”
“It is so frustrating to see public policy from this Government treat them as pests to be controlled and expelled. As I mentioned, this is a solution without a problem. Twelve people from Kazakhstan have come to Ireland since 2019. There are no direct flights to or from Kazakhstan and Ireland. What is the sense in investing our time and energy, and the work of many people in the Department, on negotiations for a deal that has virtually no effect on our country? The only conclusion my colleagues and I can draw is that we are keen to sign on to anything that makes this Government look tough on immigration. That is performative, not practical.”
“They are simply a very expensive PR exercise for the Minister and this Government to seem tough on immigration. All of this is happening when our system for processing international protection, immigration, naturalisation and asylum claims is crumbling and always has been. The focus and priority of our system should be on a fair, kind and quick process of seeking asylum, applying for visas and dealing with immigration in this country. We have seen an overwhelming focus on how to echo the cries of "Get them out". We have heard the far right in this country in our laws and policies, all while immigrants fear for their safety and face increasing racism and discrimination. These people are the backbone of our communities, public services and tax base.”
“As Deputy Gannon outlined, the Social Democrats will not be supporting the motion. I will outline three clear reasons that is the case. First, it is demonstrative of virtue signalling and performative cruelty, which has not crept into our system but has been recently exposed as being in our system. Second, it is a solution without a problem. I will outline some of the problems we could be directing our energies at in the Dáil and elsewhere within the international protection system. Finally, very serious human rights concern exist within this suggested piece of work. Last week, and in recent months, we have seen the Minister for justice tweeting gleefully about deportation flights, which do not represent value for money for the State.”
“We need to see the same leadership from the Government to push through and make sure the sale of Israeli bonds is stopped in Europe and facilitate the end of this genocide.”
“What it fails to state is that the Central Bank has said an example of a legal basis for refusal would be national restrictive measures to prohibit the selling of securities with Israel. These are some of the ways in which I believe the countermotion is incredibly weak. As colleagues have done, I urge the Government to facilitate a free vote on this. We in Ireland feel powerless. I feel powerless and heartbroken. The people of Ireland tell me they feel powerless. We have seen incredible leadership from the 12 individuals on the Madleen , from Trinity College divesting itself, as the first third level institution to do so, from Israeli institutions, from the people who are joining right now a caravan to march on Gaza, and from the Hague Group which has just now called for an international conference to end this genocide.”
“Other than insufficient prospectus disclosures, an example of a legal basis for refusal would be: 1. The existence of EU financial sanctions prohibiting the provision of services or assistance in connection with the issuance of securities by the Israeli government, or 2. National restrictive measures to the same effect. What the Sinn Féin Bill tried to introduce a couple of weeks ago, and what we are trying to introduce now, is national restrictive measures. The Government's countermotion states the Central Bank "has clearly stated that an Advisory Opinion of the ICJ, or indeed the processes of the ICC does not constitute grounds for the [Central Bank] to refuse the prospectus".”
“If we as a State have to muddle through the complexity of this first step, that is what we have to do because it will set off a domino effect for country after country. The Government must go further to end the Israeli prospectus and, if necessary, fight it in the courts. The same ruling of the International Court of Justice states all UN member states are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel's illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. Again, it gives legal force to allow us to do it. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the Central Bank's own FAQ on bonds. The Central Bank [as we have heard] can only refuse the approval of a prospectus where the Central Bank has a legal basis to do so.”
“When the Minister says he does not believe this would be workable and that it would be undermining independence, I am not at any point taking for granted that there is not a complex set of laws and financial regulations that dominate the activities of the Central Bank, none of us are; we understand the complexity of the picture but the Genocide Convention is clear. In January 2024 the International Court of Justice found that the Palestinian people in Gaza had plausible rights to be protected from the imminent risk of genocide and that there was an immediate legal obligation to take maximum action to prevent genocide. Believing that something is not workable is not reason enough to fail to act. We have to try. If this means testing it in the courts, then we have to try.”
“This is what we are saying when we say "complicity". This is why we are inundated with emails and the Minister is inundated with emails, and why all of our constituents are reaching out to us, absolutely heartbroken, begging for something to be done. It is why people are turning out on the streets again and again. We are not asking the Minister to fix this all on his own. We just want him to try. I want to speak on some of the countermotion and rebuttal the Minister has put forward. I will start by quoting the Central Bank's own code of conduct, as I have done previously in the Chamber. It states that, "Acting with integrity requires a higher standard of behaviour than simply achieving a basic level of compliance with applicable laws and/or regulations".”
“As did my colleague Deputy Gannon, I want to address the reaction to my use yesterday in the Chamber of the word "complicit". The Taoiseach had a very strong reaction to it. I want to be clear about why I use this word. Maybe a better word to describe the Central Bank and its role is "involvement". Perhaps this would make it easier for people to understand it. The Central Bank is involved in the sale of Israeli bonds in Europe by approving the prospectus. This is a fact and it is indisputable. The reason the word "complicit" applies is because complicity is not just through action, it is also through inaction. By facilitating the sale of these Israeli bonds, and by Government inaction to stop the Central Bank from facilitating the sale of Israeli bonds, all Irish people are made complicit in the actions of Israel.”
“As a result of this proposal from the Government, a landlord will now be incentivised to bully out their tenants, or refuse to renew a lease and raise the rent by hundreds if not thousands of euro overnight. The Government needs to recognise that without a serious reset of housing policy, as called for by the Housing Commission, the housing catastrophe will only continue. There will be more poverty, more exploitation and more and more homelessness. There is a solution to this, and it involves releasing at least some of the more than €8 billion in the Government's 2024 surplus to build social and affordable housing, and viewing housing as a human right and renters as people rather than as commodities to be exploited.”
“These people are already forced to choose between heating and eating. The vast majority of people in Ireland are not able to save money or buy a home of their own. There are now multiple generations of young people locked out of home ownership. The hole that has been dug for them is reaching all the way to Australia, Canada and New Zealand where so many people in my constituency of Dublin Rathdown have told me their children have gone. This lack of affordability results in a concentration of housing in the hands of institutional investors who see a house as an asset and not as a family home. These measures make our crisis of affordability worse than ever. The Government has failed to see the real human cost of the guaranteed higher rents as a result of this policy.”
“Expanding RPZs nationwide is a welcome move but the cap, in line with inflation, is specifically designed to raise rents and ensure all new builds are unaffordable. Throughout autumn and winter, we will see more and more people forced onto our streets and out of their homes. Government policy created a housing emergency, then a housing crisis and now a housing disaster. This Government has consistently implemented policies that benefit institutional investors instead of renters, yet it is keen to keep digging. Measures such as the restriction of no-fault evictions are welcome but are outweighed by the consequences of the rest of the proposed changes. The Government has failed to recognise its duty of care to those who are already struggling to pay rent or find somewhere affordable to live, particularly those on lower incomes.”
“The Government strategy through the course of the housing crisis has essentially been to increase developer investment - in a nutshell - and it has failed catastrophically. The Government now seeks to double down by creating a system that will result in the removal of the 2% rent pressure cap nationally for new builds. The whole point of building more houses is to drive rents down, not up. This proposal puts landlords and their profit margins above renters and their basic right to a roof over their heads. Housing developers are making tens of millions in profit yet the Government continues to hand out tax credits and cuts and now paves the way for mass evictions to maximise profit. Níl sé sách maith. Ba cheart go mbeidh an gnáthdhuine ag breathnú ar na praghsanna ar Daft.ie ag dul síos. Déanfaidh an plean seo a mhalairt.”
“Will the Taoiseach support our motion and will he and the Tánaiste allow their colleagues in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael a free vote on this to allow them to vote with their conscience and to stop Ireland’s complicity in this genocide?”
“Fifty-four thousand people have now been killed in Palestine. Eighteen people were shot today while waiting for food and another eight were killed in a bomb explosion in central Gaza. These are bombs and bullets that are partially funded by the sale of Israeli bonds. Two weeks ago, the Government was offered the opportunity to adopt legislation which would enable the Minister for Finance to cease Ireland's approval, and that of the Central Bank, of the prospectus which permits the sale of Israeli bonds here in Europe. Tomorrow we will use our time to bring another cross-party motion to facilitate the same thing.”
“While RTÉ executives have been screaming from the rooftops about a €150,000 payment to Ryan Tubridy for nearly two years, they wasted more than 30 times that figure on IT cock-ups alone and did not bother telling anyone about it until very recently. Shamefully, it is ordinary workers who are bearing the brunt of this mismanagement with cutbacks and redundancies. Is the Tánaiste concerned about this latest revelation? Is he happy RTÉ is being sufficiently transparent? Is he concerned there is more waste in RTÉ that we are yet to learn about?”
“At a meeting of the Oireachtas media committee yesterday, RTÉ executives revealed yet more wasted spending at the State broadcaster. An IT project, specifically a channel management system, went over budget by nearly €1 million. This comes just weeks after we learned, for the first time, about a €3.6 million writedown for another botched IT project. That is nearly €5 million either overspent or wasted on IT projects alone. These are only the projects we know about because RTÉ did not volunteer this information. The revelation that €900,000 was overspent on a channel management system only came to light when I asked a direct question at the end of a two-hour session of questioning. It had to be dragged out of them, which is hugely concerning.”
“We need a wider conversation on the hiding of assets in a warren of corporate structures while employees walk away empty-handed. We also need to give serious thought to the theoretical underpinning of a bankruptcy policy that leaves those with the least amount of leverage and advantage in their negotiating relationship with a business - those being, the employees - with the most vulnerability in bankruptcies.”
“However, in a context where we, as a State, are willing to take more responsibility for the protection of people’s livelihoods, it is nonsensical to shoulder that burden alone and allow companies that have already failed in their responsibility to remain solvent, to such a degree that they become bankrupt, to then also not take responsibility for the human cost of their mistakes. If we want a more equal balance of power and responsibility that does not lead us into such damaging and high-profile bankruptcies, as we saw with Clerys and Debenhams, this is something we have to address. Tá sé thar am go bhfoghlaimeoidh muid ó na botúin agus na cásanna crua atá tar éis teacht romhainn. Caithfear níos mó suim a chuir sna fáthanna agus an teoraic ar a bhfuil ár corais dócmhainneacht tógtha.”
“If we are considering insolvencies and liquidations as matters of public policy, which I believe we should, we must be able to look at the situation in the round. While it is very tempting to think of insolvency as something that is solely between the creditors and the debtors, by seeking the assistance of the courts and of liquidators and receivers in the first place, we have before us an admission that this is no longer a private matter. This places to the forefront the duty of the State to support workers when their employer becomes insolvent. It is also important to ensure that we are imposing responsibilities on employers. I feel that we are more comfortable with setting up a State support than taking on a change in the duties of employers, particularly with regard to large companies in this country.”
“In a time when a company seeks the aid of the courts and the State in allowing it to escape the repayment of debts and to wipe the slate clean, and when public policy is assisting a corporate entity to escape its commitments and liabilities, it is difficult to justify why the workers affected by this are most vulnerable. It was not the Debenhams workers who made the company go into liquidation. It was not the fault of Clerys' workers that they woke up one morning to find their jobs were gone. As a matter of public policy, we should make it a priority to recognise this reality in how the State supports workers, but also in the duties we impose on employers to support them as well.”
“Debenhams' workers faced total dismissal, and violence, and fought for 406 days for their right to a fair redundancy. The parent company of Debenhams decided to stop funding the Irish operation and to cut its losses. These losses included the livelihoods of countless workers, mainly women. This subsidiary had few assets and was allowed to go bankrupt, all while the parent company had assets and profits to pay them a just redundancy but no legal framework that could help the employees to get a fair deal. Prior to this it was the Clerys workers whose company did not pay them redundancy, leaving the State to provide some relief to workers who had given many years of their lives to their workplace, all while that very company held on to some of the most valuable commercial real estate in Dublin.”
“I will now discuss the wider public policy implications of insolvency policy, to which this Bill relates, and which we need to address as a State if we want to provide secure, high-quality employment to all workers. In this country, we have seen countless examples of workers being left behind in insolvency proceedings. It is vital that we do all we can to protect employees and their incomes in an insolvency. The Bill is a positive step in this regard, but we must not forget that there is a huge lack of responsibility being taken by employers for the people who in many cases have given their lives to working in companies that may go into liquidation. The protection of assets through transnational corporate structures is a tangled web, but it is one that we must try to unpick as a matter of public policy.”
“There are some provisions I believe could be addressed on Committee Stage. First, on the onus to serve notice to the employer in respect to an application, it is hard enough to keep track of an employer from five years ago but, in some cases, for an individual 40 years ago would be almost impossible. An employer who is difficult to find should not be a barrier to employees getting the money to which they are rightly entitled. Second, while sole traders are not going to be the main employers who are brought under the scheme in this Bill, it is important that the new section 4G(a), to be inserted in the principal Act by the Bill's section 6, does not unfairly disadvantage employees who may not have the address of their former employer, especially when this is information that may be available to the State.”
“I welcome the prospect of employees who have previously been left in a legal limbo as to their entitlements now being assured that they have grounds to claim their wage arrears, holiday pay, payment in lieu of notice, and other payments due to them in a clear process under the scheme. When it comes to ensuring that these employees are truly able to receive what is owed to them, simplicity of the process is key. Access to justice in situations like this is often thwarted by opaque rules and long, difficult processes that individuals are expected to navigate. It is something we not only need to enshrine in legislation, but also to ensure that it works in practice, especially due to the significant time period covered by this new provision due to the delay in the transposition of the directive.”
“It is not simply one's wages and a chance to get back on one's feet that one fights for - it is recognition of the thousands of hours, the commitment and the personal cost of one's job being pulled out from under one through no fault of one's own. The Glegola judgment highlighted that while there were certain mechanisms whereby employees could seek the money they were owed, our legislation had a significant gap for companies that did not fit the restrictive definition of "insolvent" under the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984. The insolvency payments scheme is a vital safeguard to employees. Where other processes may leave them in the lurch, unpaid and unprioritised, it ensures that they are able to recoup some of the money they are owed that has been denied to them.”
“I will speak today about the clarity that has long been denied to workers in situations where their employer has ceased trading without formally winding up; access to justice in situations of insolvency for employees; and also the wider public policy aims of insolvency law, which often go under the radar. I am supportive of the aims of this Bill in seeking to further protect employees in the event of their employer's insolvency. There are few people who know how truly vulnerable one's livelihood is than workers who have faced involuntary redundancy and the sharp end of corporate bankruptcies or a cessation of trading.”
“I thank the library and research service for the paper it prepared on this Bill. It was very helpful to me in preparing my contribution for today, as I am sure it was for many of us. Déanann sí scoth na hoibre chun a chinntiú go bhfuilimid mar reachtóirí in ann ár gcuid oibre a dhéanamh, agus molaim í as ucht a cuid iarrachtaí. Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom leagan amach céard ar mhaith liom díriú air inniu. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar an easpa soiléireachta agus cosanta d’oibritheoirí i gcomhlachtaí nach bhfuil ag trádáil ach nach bhfuil ar scor. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar rochtain ar cheartas dlí d'oibritheoirí nuair a stopann comhlacht ag trádáil mar seo. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar pholasaí poiblí maidir le dócmhainneacht.”
“I have no interest in pointing to platitudes and what little action we have taken when the Palestinian people ask their friends in Ireland why we did not do all we could.”
“I have spoken to so many people in my constituency who are enraged and despairing at the complacency of the spin we have heard from this Government on Ireland's actions. They are angry and simply terrified to see the official line be so disconnected from reality and from the will of the people. I will conclude with a quote from the writer Omar El Akkad. On 25 October 2023, after just three weeks of the bombardment of Gaza, he said "One day, when it's safe, when there's no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it is too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this". It is not yet too late to hold people accountable. It is not yet too late to save those still alive in Gaza.”
“I take huge exception to that narrative because we are not the ones politicising this issue; the Government is. All I am doing is expressing the authentic outrage of the people I represent. Here is my version: genocide equals bad, action equals good - now act. The Government points to the aid we have given, the words we have spoken and how we are doing more than many others and use this as a smokescreen for not passing the occupied territories Bill, for continuing the facilitate the sale of Israeli bonds, and for not stopping the flow of arms through our airspace. I understand that it may be annoying to not get a pat on the back for these things but I will not apologise for pushing us to be better, to fulfil our obligations under the genocide convention and our obligations to all of humanity.”
“I look forward to that same willingness informing any alteration of the triple lock and a true pursuit of the UN General Assembly as a valid method to satisfy it. Be it on the triple lock or action on Gaza, we cannot have hand-wringing on the Security Council and then a refusal to engage with the other mechanisms which are available to us. At every juncture we are pushed back against with cries of, "haven't we done more than most?" when the reality is that we have simply not done enough. I have heard time and again in this Chamber Government Ministers admonish me and others in opposition for asking them to do more to end this genocide, for supposedly politicising this issue. The Tánaiste began his response today by asking us to join together, not to politicise and not to position this as Opposition equals good, Government equals bad.”
“The Government has often stated, as a rebuttal to Opposition calls for action on Gaza, that there is a need to have an international response but this does not mean waiting for someone else to take the lead, as the Government has done, time and again, over the course of this genocide. We must push the countries of the global north into action and lend our strength to all those nations of the world which have already said that we must stop this genocide and together, we might be able to. I welcome that the Government will not oppose today's motion and that it is showing willingness to engage with the multilateral system and to use the UN General Assembly, despite expected Security Council resistance.”
“We in the Social Democrats are proud to cosign this motion, and we thank the Labour Party for tabling it. It is when international law is under attack that we need to use these mechanisms most. Day after day since this genocide began, we have watched atrocity after atrocity. It is difficult not to despair seeing the international system frozen in its tracks. This motion is about using the UN General Assembly to mobilise the international community to act on Gaza. Countries around the world are waiting for each other to take the lead. They are unwilling to stick their necks out for Palestine, unwilling to risk anything to save our shared humanity. We have a responsibility under the genocide convention to protect the Palestinian people from eradication.”
“I will say again what I said last week - the bar on this is not just low; it is buried under the rubble in Gaza. If we and the world want to stop this genocide, we need to start with the bare minimum and then we must build and build until Israel is stopped and the people of Palestine are free. We owe that much to the children, women and men we have waited to help. Passing this Bill is a step towards doing just that. It is clear from the legal advice the OPLA provided to Sinn Féin that this Bill is robust and workable and should be passed. We in the Social Democrats will not close our eyes. We will not look away, we will not be made complicit in genocide and we will not stop fighting until this genocide is stopped and peace, justice and self-determination are guaranteed for the Palestinian people.”
“We then saw another and another. We waited for the international community to take action. We waited for our Government to take action. The Palestinian people waited for anyone to take action. Only in recent weeks has rhetoric changed. The European Union will review the EU-Israel association agreement but let us remember that suspension would only revoke a privilege that Israel enjoys with its largest trading partner. A year and a half later, we still wait for sanctions and the occupied territories Bill and we allow these bonds to be sold through the facilitation of our Central Bank. Many in the Government will be at pains to say that we have done more than other countries. The Minister said it in his response. However, Ireland has not even done the bare minimum.”
“There cannot be any business as usual in the face of genocide. There cannot be any more delay. We need to ban the sale of these bonds through our Central Bank. Le rófhada, tá an Rialtas tar éis dul i bhfolach taobh thiar d'fhocail agus taobh thiar d'airgead tugtha mar chabhair dhaonnúil. Níl aon duine sa Seomra seo ag rá nár chóir na rudaí sin a dhéanamh ach is léir dúinn ar fad go bhfuil i bhfad níos mó rudaí ann gur féidir linn a dhéanamh chun a chur in aghaidh an chinedhíothaithe i nGaza. Caithfimid a bheith mar cheannairí ní hamháin lenár bhfocail ach lenár ngníomhartha. We have seen the result of governments, institutions and the world doing less than the bare minimum to live up to our duties and obligations under the Genocide Convention, human rights law and international law. Over a year and a half ago, we saw a hospital bombed.”
“Our duty to prevent genocide does not come from a court ruling but from the evidence before our eyes. It is easy for the Central Bank to fail to live up to those words when we in this Chamber also fail to live up to the words we speak. We have a chance to make sure we all live up to our obligation to prevent and stop genocide. If the Central Bank will not act to stop the sale of these bonds and not to renew the licence in a few months' time, we in this Chamber must lead to make this happen. We have seen how mundane transactions and business as usual have allowed genocide to continue. Every packet of dates or soft drink sold generates the little profits that make war possible. We have seen the brave resistance of people in the face of prosecution in jurisdictions all over the world in supporting boycotts, divestments and sanctions.”
“Níl sé maith go leor go mbeadh an Rialtas sásta tada a dhéanamh chun díol na mbannaí seo a stopadh. Caithfimid gach rud gur féidir linn a dhéanamh chun an cinedhíothú i nGaza a stopadh. Is é sin díreach céard atá sa Bhille seo. If people will not act because they believe they cannot, we, as legislators, must prove that they can. We are meant to lead in this Chamber. When we are silent and fail to act, we make it harder for everyone else to act. The Central Bank has said several times that its hands are tied as regards these bonds but its own ethical code of conduct states, "Acting with integrity requires a higher standard of behaviour than simply achieving a basic level of compliance with applicable laws and/or regulations." I argue that the Genocide Convention trumps banking law.”
“It may seem or be portrayed as a neutral technical transaction to facilitate the sale of Israeli bonds through our Central Bank but the sale of these bonds allows Israel to buy warplanes, missiles, ammunition and targeting software. What is put forward as a clean technical transaction and something so mundane that we could not stop it even if we tried is raising the money needed to keep aid out and to raze Gaza to the ground. The Governor and the Central Bank commission say that, because they are not marketed as war bonds, there is nothing the bank can do. They say that the evidence of their being war bonds comes from press sources, which is not enough to warrant action. Through our role in facilitating the sale of these bonds in the EU, Ireland makes possible the horrific war crimes we see on our screens every day. We become complicit.”