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 6 of 26.
“Of course, it is also on the back of the governance and financial scandal, if you like, recently experienced by RTÉ and by this disruption I refer to. I welcome the move to bring RTÉ under the remit of the C and AG. I have been an Accounting Officer under the remit of the C and AG. It is a rigorous body that I believe will assist us in bringing to where it needs to be the transparency and oversight of RTÉ as our national and State broadcaster. I want to pick up on a couple of other specifics within this. Screen Producers Ireland has been in touch about the 25% funding minimum. Essentially, one of the issues it raises is that, within the legislation, we do not yet see a commencement date for that minimum. We need to look at that.”
“I just have a few short points to make, so I will not use my full time, just for the benefit of other speakers. I thank the Minister of State for being here in the absence of the media Minister. I welcome the progress of this Bill and I look forward to getting stuck into it on Committee Stage at the media committee. We are at a crucial juncture as to where broadcasting is and where streaming is, all the disruption we have experienced as a society from the Internet, essentially, and the companies that dominate that world, what that has meant for revenues for traditional broadcasters, legacy media generally, and what it means now for how we govern that space. I recognise that this is on the back of not only the Future of Media Commission but also the more recent governance report.”
“We have to increase core funding because, at the moment, core funding for FRCs is at €180,000 per annum and that is intended to support three staff and overheads. It is not enough and will not prove sustainable for many centres. Some 70% of FRCs have reported that running costs have increased by at least 10% over the past two years. Will the Taoiseach commit to an appropriate increase in FRC core funding so that the wonderful FRCs around our country, like Hillview, Balally and Rosemount, can continue to deliver?”
“Family resource centres are a lifeline for many families and individuals and right now they are helping people to bear the brunt of the multiple crises we are facing such as fuel, housing, cost of living, childcare and mental health. They are at the coalface. They provide vital supports, and they also contribute to the public good through social cohesion. They ensure that childhood continues, needs are met and communities remain connected, resilient and thriving. Dundrum, Hillview and Balally family resource centres, FRCs, do the most incredible work in my constituency of Dublin Rathdown, but it is so disheartening to hear of the pressure they are put under in delivering what they do.”
“Will the Government please commit to supporting the AI Act in full and not the digital omnibus package that is currently being pushed through, which essentially guts the approach and brings it back to self-regulation? Will it support a greater regulatory framework and the enforcement of the existing framework in order that we can feel safer about the implementation of these tools?”
“It is not often I find myself aligned with the Pope. Yesterday, the leader of the Catholic Church released an encyclical, his first, called Magnifica Humanitas , calling for greater guardrails on the use of AI and greater ethical consideration and dialogue around its implementation. One of his key points relates to the culture of power, which means the control of the AI tools, which are having such a far-reaching impact on each of our lives, is in the hands of a few private actors. The way to resolve this is through dialogue, but, mostly, it is through regulation. The Government has proved that it supports a very light-touch response to regulation. We have seen that through the failure to regulate online social media platforms.”
“Will she go beyond what she said earlier is a strong message, which the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement would be, to actual sanctioning of Israel and finally holding it to account for the constant breaking of international law that we see?”
“The Social Democrats and I welcome the release of the 14 Irish citizens who were illegally detained by Israel from the Global Sumud Flotilla. I appreciate the updates the Minister provided in today’s proceedings. I listened to closely to them. I asked last week what Israel has to do or what atrocities it has to commit for us to see action from European leaders. Honestly, I have seen in the past 48 hours my answer to that because, apparently, when a fraction of the demonic modus operandi of this Israeli State is inflicted upon European citizens, we see strong responses but this is compared to the ongoing torture of thousands of Palestinian detainees when we see an absolutely muted response. Will the Minister acknowledge the two-tier response we have seen from European leaders?”
“Will the Minister of State accept that the introduction of investor courts is a serious danger to people's well-being and their rights under the European Charter of Human Rights?”
“The Bill is two pages long but it will have an immeasurable impact on this country. As I said, we can continue our current arrangements with Canada without the investor court mechanism which undermines our regulatory ability. I will focus on the real dangers these investor courts present to us. They would hear cases from X against Ireland if we were to ban their undressing AI software. We have seen the prioritisation of big polluters' profits in Mexican investor courts and it is explicit that companies will be able to sue for loss of future profits because of regulation. That is not just in the area of climate; it is in areas like workers' rights as well. It is possible that the State would have to pay off X for the privilege of protecting the children of this country.”
“It is a threat to future legislative powers of this Dáil that we are choosing to go with investors courts and not just settle for and work with what we have, which is a positive trade agreement.”
“Farmers, workers and consumers have been left totally confused by the CETA deal. Although the Minister of State describes the extensive debate at EU level, that debate has not been reflected here in the Oireachtas, where the Bill is being rushed through and pre-legislative scrutiny has been essentially suspended on it. The EU is not rushing us to ratify and given that France has shown extreme reluctance, I do not understand why we are pushing this through. We have all of the benefits of the trade we want with Canada without the investor court system. Essentially, we are selling out to this system by forcing through this Bill. It is such a threat to our sovereignty as a country.”
“Removing the triple lock is not just signing a piece of paper; it is saying to the UN and smaller nations across the globe that we are done with multilateralism and we are going retreat to our regional bloc and work with Europe because we are into the whole militarisation game it is pushing and we do not believe anymore that our benefit to the world is in the space of human rights, solidarity and social justice. For me, the question around sovereignty is another myth that we need to bust. Finally, the triple lock is emblematic of that sovereignty because it is what the Irish people said they wanted in the Nice and Lisbon treaties when they knew that this day would come when we would be pulled towards a European defence union. I ask the Minister to put it to the people, just as this motion sets out.”
“We are going to fight tooth and nail for this along with the Irish people. All of this brings me to one of the things that irks me most about this argument is the Minister talks about sovereignty and says our sovereignty is under threat because of the veto of the UN Security Council. I know the UN Security Council and the UN more broadly needs reform. I totally accept that; we all do. However, when the Minister talks about that sovereignty, it absolutely undermines the meaning of the word, which is under threat in Gaza and Ukraine, and which can be protected by the upholding of the international global order which is what the Government is trying to walk away from by removing the triple lock.”
“We have seen the Government cosy up to NATO and the former Minister for Defence talk about the purchase of weapons above what many have talked about are the absolutely urgent issues of reforming and improving terms and conditions for our military personnel. The Government has absolutely trounced any neutrality in terms of our airspace and airports in allowing the use our airspace and Shannon Airport to transport arms and personnel for other military powers. The Government cannot hold that it stands for military neutrality when all it has done since it has been in government and during previous terms is chip away at that neutrality. What this Defence Act and the removal of the triple lock will do is put a final nail in the coffin of Irish neutrality. We on the Opposition benches will not let that happen.”
“To suggest the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock, it is not central to our neutrality anyway and Europe is not on a path towards militarisation, if we start to cut those pillars out from underneath the Minister's argument, we get to the final one which is that the Minister says the Government continues to support Irish neutrality. That is the guts of this statement and I suspect what we were going to hear from the Minister, Deputy McEntee. I cannot think of enough examples to say why that does not hold water anymore besides the Defence Act and what the Minister is putting forward as the abolition of the triple lock.”
“We have appointed a European Defence Commissioner who talks about a European defence union, and not covertly but completely openly. We have completely diverted European funding towards military spending and away from social cohesion. We made changes to the multi-annual financial framework which means those countries that have an arms industry will benefit the most from the future of European Union finance. That means the bigger countries, the ones which do not need it as much, are now going to be getting, and benefitting from, European funding. This also means those businesses which are not contributing to the defence space are also going to find it harder. On the idea that Europe is not on a path towards militarisation, the Government cannot hold these positions. They are nonsense. We can all see it with our own eyes.”
“The triple lock is what serves us in allowing ourselves to be militarily active, to have Óglaigh na hÉireann and to allow them to engage in peacekeeping. We have the longest-standing unbroken peacekeeping record of any country in the world. All of it has been done under the Blue Helmet and Blue Beret. That is what the Government is trying to take away. That is what it is saying is militarily neutral. The third myth I want to bust is that Europe is not on a path to militarisation. One of the Minister’s colleagues, the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, went apoplectic a couple of weeks ago when I suggested that in another debate and said I was scaremongering, fearmongering and causing concern among people. I cannot understand how the Minister can stand here and say we are not on the path towards militarisation.”
“He said, "It appears Fine Gael is arguing Ireland is failing in its European responsibilities and is allowing Russia and China to have a vote over our peacekeeping activities." This is the very same argument the Taoiseach still holds. He said, "This is nothing more than an out of touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael which ignores the fact of Ireland’s international standing." That captures what a lot of us are trying to get across. We punch above our weight in diplomacy, human rights and the values we hold around solidarity and social justice. That is where we are good. We cannot compete with the military might of other European and global powers. We never have been, and never will be, able to.”
“That is why it was baked into legislation. The claim that the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock is the first myth we need to bust. In fact, it is trying to completely remove it, as is clear from its proposed Bill and the debates that have happened to date. The second myth is that the triple lock is not central to our neutrality. We have heard from multiple members of the Government on this point. I see that great quote from the Taoiseach has aged as well as a Trump tweet does in saying the triple lock is core to our neutrality. I will read some of the similar things he said from around that time.”
“The first myth is that the Government is only trying to reform the triple lock. The Fianna Fáil manifesto spoke about seeking sensible reform. The Fine Gael manifesto did not even mention reform of the triple lock. Since then, the Government has said it is putting forward a defence (amendment) Bill to enable a shift from having a mechanism that does not work towards an approach based on the principles of the UN Charter. Of course, there is no legal comparison between adhering to the principles of the UN Charter versus the actual legal mechanism of the triple lock. It is like going before a judge and acknowledging guilt of a crime but proposing to interpret the law as one sees fit. It is just meaningless. The principles of the UN Charter are important but they do not serve the purpose served by the triple lock.”
“I tabled this amendment because I want the Government TDs, including Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Independent Members, to say to us that they do not support neutrality because that is the position they hold. I will go into that in more detail. I will use my remaining time to talk about the narrative the Government is putting forth in this area, which is comprised of myths. I propose to bust a few of those myths with the aim of countering some of what I am hearing from that side of the House. The word I want to use is one my late dad was really fond of and that is "bolloxology". I hope the Chair will pardon my language. The rationale for the Government's stance does not make any sense. It is important to pick apart some of the myths it tries to hold. When we do so, we see they mean nothing. There is nothing in them.”
“Since I have been in Dáil Éireann, one of the most cynical practices I have witnessed is the Government's response to Private Members' motions. People outside the Chamber do not really understand what goes on. I find it offensive that the Government tables an amendment whereby it takes the entire text of a motion put forward by the Opposition in a spirit of genuine debate and replaces it with a self-praising, self-aggrandising and totally contradictory statement. That is what the Government does every time. Of course, it does so because it does not want to have to vote against what is proposed, which, in this case, is support for neutrality. The Government wants instead to vote for its own hollow position.”
“We certainly oppose the defence (amendment) Bill being put forward by the Government. This is an area on which not just left-wing Opposition parties but the full range of Opposition Members are in unison. I appreciate the Minister of State's attendance in the Chamber and acknowledge her indication that the Minister for Defence will be here presently. However, at this stage, I expect the Minister will not arrive until 11.45 a.m., when she will make a closing statement. That means she will not have the benefit of hearing the unity of voices across the Opposition benches in defence of our neutrality and in opposition to the Government's attempt to dismantle it. That is why I tabled my amendment. It is not in any way intended to compete with the work of Deputy Stanley.”
“I thank Deputy Stanley, his colleagues and his team for bringing forward this motion. It is long overdue that we have an opportunity to speak about neutrality and the triple lock in the Chamber. I acknowledge the efforts of the many volunteers in the Irish Neutrality League and other organisations who work so hard on this issue. Uplift is doing amazing work to mobilise communities across Ireland. I am very proud to be a member of the parliamentary wing of the Irish Neutrality League. As Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned, when it was originally formed, the league included as members heroes of mine such as Countess Markievicz. It is an area in which we are working really well across the Opposition. We do not all hold the exact same position but it is approximately the same.”
“2) Act, 1960 and the solemn national declarations attached to the Nice and Lisbon Treaties; — abide by the principal of multilateralism and not allow the State to become part of any regional military alliance; — hold a national plebiscite, to take place before any legislation to amend the Triple Lock mechanism is brought before the Dáil, to allow the Irish people to express their view on whether a United Nations mandate should remain a requirement for Ireland to deploy peacekeeping troops overseas; — ensure that the plebiscite presents a balanced and informed choice, reflecting the role of the Triple Lock mechanism in Ireland's approach to international deployments to date, the considerations around its impact on peacekeeping operations in the future, and any scope for the removal of the Triple Lock mechanism to result in potential non-neutral military deployment; and — commit to respecting the outcome of the plebiscite and ensuring that any subsequent policy decisions reflect the will of the people while upholding Ireland's commitment to military neutrality, multilateralism, and international cooperation.".”
“I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "notes that:" and substitute the following: — Ireland's policy of military neutrality, our strong reputation of international diplomacy, and our tradition of peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance abroad; — the importance of public, democratic consultation in shaping Ireland's future defence policy; — the importance of safeguards, protections and oversight in ensuring Irish military deployments are in line with our policy of military neutrality; and — the Government plans to remove the current Triple Lock mechanism and raise the number of troops that can be deployed without Dáil oversight to 50; acknowledges: — that the Triple Lock mechanism requires (i) Government approval, (ii) Dáil approval, and (iii) a United Nations (UN) mandate through the General Assembly or Security Council for the deployment of more than 12 Irish Defence Forces personnel overseas; — that the Triple Lock mechanism was introduced to protect our military neutrality during the adoption of the Nice and Lisbon Treaties; and — that the UN mandate has played a significant role in shaping Ireland's approach to international military engagement and cooperation; calls on the Government to: — recognise that the Triple Lock and neutrality are intrinsically linked; — uphold the policy of neutrality and the Triple Lock as set out in the Defence (Amendment) (No.”
“I have been tackled by a Government Minister, in fact, who once said to me how we are fanning online hatred against the Government because of our championing of the Palestinian cause. That is not us doing it. That is the people of Ireland seeing the inaction on these benches and coming at the Government online, so allow the Government TDs to vote.”
“When I started in this Chamber, the then Deputy Catherine Connolly, now President of the State, used to say that all of the time. She talked about the Government's "sweet words" and it really struck me as a new TD. Eighteen months in, I know exactly what she means because I am drowned in the Government's sweet words. Every single week when we ask about the occupied territories Bill and the Government's lack of action on Gaza, on Palestine and on Lebanon, I am so sick of these sweet words. We need action and I echo everybody else in saying that we should have a vote of conscience on this next week where the Government TDs are allowed to vote on this according to their conscience.”
“The apartheid analysis of the Palestinian situation, which Ingrid Jaradat Gassner helped to develop, has also been taken up and strengthened by various human rights associations. The reason I read this is that it cuts through the Minister's whole argument around waiting for Europe, not being the first, and that we cannot do it alone. That is exactly what this is. If we chose to boycott that FAI fixture, the Government would start to see that not only the people in the group that are selected with Israel, but the people who might be in the group that Israel would advance to, will start. It is the same domino effect. That is what leadership is. That is what Pedro Sánchez is demonstrating, by talking further action and by pushing this as far as he can. The Government hides behind sweet words.”
“When Archbishop Desmond Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 and invited the Irish protesters to attend the ceremony, the anti-apartheid movement that was born in Ireland was hit by a wave of support that fuelled growing opposition to apartheid making a decisive contribution to bringing down this system. I will read from one further paragraph from the next section. It read that to make them collapse, oppressive regimes must be struck at their hearts - that is, in their pockets, which is where they receive the proceeds of exploitation. This is the philosophy underpinning BDS, which undertakes to publicly expose international complicity, not only political but also economic, with the apartheid regime imposed by the State of Israel on the Palestinians.”
“The strike lasted almost three years until April 1987 and set off a chain reaction that led Ireland to become the first western country to impose a total ban on the import of South African goods, thanks to public pressure aroused by the courageous gesture of Mary and her colleagues. The ban remained in place until the end of the apartheid regime in 1994. Nelson Mandela himself recognised the value of their gesture in 1990 when he was awarded honorary citizenship of Dublin. On that occasion, Mandela declared that the strikers had shown South Africans that ordinary people, far from the scene, had played a pioneering role in their struggle against apartheid. This thought, he said, had also helped him to resist in prison but that is not all.”
“To me, this is a tradition and a piece of our people and I just cannot understand why the Government cannot see it. I want to quote from a recent book written by Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian occupied territories. I reviewed this recently for The Irish Times and recommend everybody reads it. When I read this passage I honestly got goosebumps. She wrote: "It began in Ireland in 1984, when Mary Manning, a twenty-one-year-old supermarket cashier, in accordance with the directives of her union, refused to handle grapefruit from South Africa." When Manning, and her union representative, Karen Guerin, continued to refuse to handle any South African products, calling on the other workers to do the same, they were suspended and started a strike that was joined by eight other colleagues.”
“That is what this legislation offers the chance to do now. Other European countries have much more divided populations and much more complex legacies and histories regarding this issue. We do not have that because we know what it was like to be occupied by an imperialist force hundreds of years ago and for that reason, since the beginning of this genocide and for decades past, the solidarity we have had with the Palestinian cause is palpable and the Government has squandered it. Ireland should have been the first to recognise the State of Palestine. We should have been the first to introduce an occupied territories Bill. We should have been the first to comply with the ICJ ruling but we did none of those things. We were not the first in any of them.”
“I will go back to the point I made again and again that this Government has squandered the will of this people. The Government talks about the European approach being the best way forward. I agree. It would be amazing if all of Europe agreed to this but we all know that is not happening today or tomorrow. I welcome the details the Minister gave about the progress she is making and I welcome the work she is doing in this space but we all know that is a horizon compared to what we can actually do here and now. There is no reason the Minister cannot pursue a twintrack programme on this. Look at what you can do with your European colleagues while you implement legislation here to sanction Israel. That is what we should be doing and what the Government should have been doing all along - it should have been goods and services all along.”
“It reads: "In effect, this amounts to a boycott, divestment and sanctions approach with respect to Israel." I think there is a typo in the next line because it reads: "The Government does support that approach [I think the Minister means the Government does not support that approach] although we fully recognise the right of individuals and organisations to make their own decisions in this regard." My question to the Minister in response is: what does Israel have to do for this Government to support a boycott, divestment, sanctions, BDS, approach? What does it have to do? What atrocities has it not yet done to the people of Gaza and now of Lebanon? What? I just cannot think of any more atrocities that Israel must commit for this Government to actually sanction it.”
“The Minister will understand why trust on this issue is shredded and is on the floor because the Government has failed to do that and all we get are more and more messages about legal advice from the Attorney General and dropping services from the Bill, which no trade lawyer in the world thinks makes any sense. We do not have legislation to sanction Israel and that is what we need. There is one reference in the Minister's printed speech, on page 7, to which I want to refer.”
“Her response was to say that it is a university and, therefore, not a part of the state. She said she had legal advice, which we believe relates to contract law, which says action cannot be taken. Contract law is superseded, as the Minister will know, by international humanitarian law. That, to me, is a clear cut action. These are actions the Government has taken in the absence of taking what we should all be doing here, which is legislative action. The occupied territories Bill was sitting waiting for the Government. It promised an entire electorate it would deliver the occupied territories Bill immediately. When the Tánaiste was the Minister for foreign affairs about six months ago, he said it would be on Second Stage by November 2025 but I, and others, have been asking week after week: where oh where is the occupies territories Bill?”
“What we have seen since then, 15 or 18 months later, is how that has been distanced from the people who drafted it in the first place and used in multiple jurisdictions to tackle activism, essentially, and criminalise activism in the name of the Palestinian people. That is what it has been used for. That was one of the Government's first actions. The Minister will appreciate, immediately, why we start to see distrust among everybody else in this House when the Government says it cares but that was its very first action as a Government. The most recent action, which multiple people have spoken about, is in regard to the Technion issue and the University of Galway links. Since taking office, this was one of the first times she had to deal with something that was pressing and had to be dealt with.”
“The people of Ireland who have campaigned so hard on this issue do not believe it either. I want to take two examples of actions the Government has taken - one of them was one of the very first actions it took and one of them is the most recent action. I do not think a lot of people remember this but on 16 January 2025 the Government announced it was endorsing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA, definition of antisemitism. It was one of the first things the Government did, as a Government, from its programme for Government. We do not talk about it much because I think people want to forget the fact this Government adopted it.”
“I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett and his colleagues for working on this and I thank Senator Black, who is here in the Chamber, for her continued work on legislation in this area, which is what we are here to discuss. The Minister's speech is, as others have said, hollow words compared to the lack of action of the Government. She talks about raising issues, she remains committed and she continues to have grave concerns. Some of the language is, "I condemn the law ... Ireland opposes... I am particularly concerned." These are all things that are not doing anything. They express a sentiment and I want to believe it. When she speaks these words, I want to believe the Minister and sometimes I do. Then I look at the actions or, specifically, the lack of actions and I cannot believe what she is saying.”
“It will favour companies that spend money developing arms across Europe. As a result, it will favour the larger countries and member states in the European Union. For me, this is a move away from social cohesion, democracy and all of the values that we hold dear in the European Union. There is no reason for Ireland to play into that. We can resist it. We can hold true to our neutrality and to our values of human rights, solidarity and compassion and push back against this draw towards militarism in every way, in terms of our neutrality and defence policy but also when it comes to industrial development and enterprise. I will be tabling amendments on Committee Stage in relation to this. That said, I reiterate that we welcome the Bill overall and will be working closely to make sure we get those points in.”
“In his opening comments the senior Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, explained the change in regard to section 8 and said that it "does not affect existing Government policy on military neutrality". I want to see more detail on that. I have to be assured that this does not compromise Ireland's neutrality but I just do not believe that is the case. I appreciate that this fits into the broader European move towards a European defence union. Those are not hyperbolic words from me. That is the specific language that is used by the European Commission. Indeed, I asked the European Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud, and Public Administration, Mr. Serafin, about this at the Oireachtas European affairs committee and it is clear that the multi-annual financial framework is pivoting towards military spending.”
“We have discussed how that governance happens and I want to read from the contribution of one of our witnesses, Ms Rosanna Fanni, a Belgian academic who is an expert in this space. She said, "The EU AI Act excludes any uses of AI for defence and security purposes, mainly because of the treaties and the non-responsibility of the EU to act upon these things. This also comes to the point I made about the importance of national approaches.". Commenting on the use of non-kinetic AI systems in defence, she went on to say that it "relies heavily on non-state actors, namely private companies. Those private companies may sometimes also have different interests or may not be 100% aligned with the national values, so to speak, especially with regard to Ireland's principle of neutrality.".”
“This decision to allow the IDA and Enterprise Ireland to make these investments is only explicable in the context of wider trends internationally. The Government seeks to allow this investment because at a time of war and uncertainty, it wants State agencies to essentially cash in. It is wrong to invest in weapons of war when Ireland could be a beacon of hope and peace. These agencies are not in need of those new markets to sell to. It is an ideological decision and a serious disservice to the workers in the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. As I mentioned, we have been discussing this in the AI committee in recent weeks because much of the defence and arms industry is looking towards AI and the tools that are deployed in war.”
“The Bill does not make any regulations to replace the currently-required Government approval. In addition, it is important to mention that military applications of AI are not governed by the incoming EU AI Act. This is something that we have discussed in the past number of weeks at the Oireachtas AI committee. What that does is create a gaping hole in the regulations here as the IDA and Enterprise Ireland are facing no controls and no accountability. It is clear that when this goes wrong and an unconscionable investment is made, we will see the Government acting as if it had no role in legislation that allowed shame and scandal to come to our nation. This is a rapidly evolving space in so many different areas and the response from the Government is one of hands-off.”
“We need to scale up the investment available in renewable energies, and this Bill works towards that goal. Further budgetary funding, though, is required to get to the green transition that Ireland needs. Other provisions in the Bill are also welcome but I want to focus my remaining time on a big issue that my party has with this legislation. Section 8 of this Bill is a disgraceful attempt to allow the IDA and Enterprise Ireland to invest in and promote military investments, despite our national policy of military neutrality. It would allow this investment to take place without governmental approval. It peels back checks and balances on the choices made by these agencies which use taxpayers' money. The Bill states that Enterprise Ireland and the IDA would be able to make investments and engage in partnerships without that oversight.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. Broadly, we in the Social Democrats welcome the Bill and its efforts to modernise, align and work towards just transitions in the environmental and digital spaces. I will touch on some of the positive aspects before I share some of my major concerns regarding the Bill. These positives include the increased grant thresholds, as well as easier approval and a stronger focus on the development of environmentally friendly initiatives. Sections of this Bill also give clarity to the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, allowing them to complete their goals with greater efficiency. Those measures are certainly welcome. The farming land solar panel scheme had excellent take-up and demand but only enough funding for roughly 10% of the requests.”
“My point is that this legislation is on the books right now, ready for the House to debate it. The Minister said that it needed to be debated in other chambers. Where are those chambers? This is where it needs to be done. It needs to be debated at the health committee and in the Dáil so that we can finally legislate for what people voted for on 25 May 2018.”
“Women need to be trusted and to be given the choice to proceed with their healthcare and their reproductive rights in the way that they wish. I urge all Government TDs to vote for this legislation and bring it forward to the next Stage so that we can get past the Minister's subtle nuances-----”