Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 38.
“If the Minister of State has obstacles that he believes are in his way and preventing him from taking action, I would like to know what he is doing about addressing them.”
“The Government is now saying this is getting close to forcing it to name who will do the job but it will try to put up another hurdle and make it even harder again. I did not hear in the Minister of State's reply an answer to the question I asked him, which was what has been happening in the past 12 months. The Government said it wanted to do investigations into the documented cases of weapons and military goods passing over our airspace. What happened with the investigations? The Government said it wanted to use the current legislation to its fullest and to employ the strong provisions that are in place but there have been zero inspections. There have been no inspections. I would like an answer to what has been done for the past 12 months.”
“Even though the Minister of State has said that these amendments address the question of who shall do the actions, he has said that he believes there is a new gap, which is around how they will do the inspections. That is not a basis for opposing the clarity around who will perform the actions. That is not a rationale for opposing these amendments. It is certainly not a rationale for opposing the legislation. As I said, it is only practising a new excuse for inaction, which is essentially a choice. I have used the word "inaction" but I should not say it is inaction. It is not inaction because 17,000 women and girls have died in the 12 months that we have been waiting for this Bill to be allowed back into the Chamber. Real actions killed them. Real weapons took their lives. It is not inaction but complicity. It is allowing transit.”
“We have been clear that what we want them to do is what the State should already have been doing anyway, which is inspecting. We are just making it that the State must inspect. The Minister of State said that the Government needs technical details of exactly how. Senator Clonan explained how he was able to go in and see pretty clearly and observe what is happening. If there is a desire among the Government and it has specifics of exactly how it would like these inspections to be taking place, it is for the Government to bring amendments, as it could on Report Stage and as it will be able to in the Dáil, as part of the many Stages ahead of us in that House. To be clear, what the Minister of State is telling us right now is that the Government is not only opposing the Bill but is also not supporting these amendments.”
“That needs to be used to its fullest and our current legislation does provide for the inspection of civil aircraft where there is an appearance or a likelihood that it will depart Ireland and contravene Irish law. We have strong provisions in place. Now the Minister of State is saying a difference is made by stating who will do the inspections. If the gap is there, it is a gap that already existed. If the gap is there, why were we being told one year ago by the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, that there were strong powers and he planned to use them? We are working through fixing the excuses but as we know, the core excuse - the core reason - is that the Government does not want to do it and does not want to know. We have come back and said exactly who can do it.”
“The base position, as I said, is the prohibition of the transit of arms, ammunition, weapons and dangerous goods through our airspace or airports. Each individual flight that lands in Ireland or that flies over Ireland is required to seek direct permission. We are talking about a base level whereby the Government is choosing each of the exemptions. It is a choice every time an exemption is made to allow the transit of those weapons. We have heard about them and what they do in clear detail. Each time, it is a choice. When it involves civil aircraft, it is a choice made by the Minister for Transport. The powers of inspection have been there for years. I will quote the Minister for Transport, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, when he spoke here one year ago: We have an existing legal regime.”
“After years of inaction and a specific requested year in the form of a timed amendment when there has been inaction, we have answered the question as who is going to do it and what they going to do but because it does not say exactly how they are going to do it in the Bill, the Government is suggesting that makes it hard for it to move forward. Come on. If there was ever a "hold me back", ridiculous position taken by the Government - the suggestion is that there is a gap in how laws are enforced. By the way, in the core Act there is no new action. We are talking about the already existing issue of the right for inspections to take place. That already exists but we simply are saying that they need to start happening. A crucial point is we are talking about a situation whereby the Government is choosing each flight.”
“If these are technical issues and if there are specifics wished for in exactly how the inspections will take place, exactly how the seizures will be conducted and exactly what physical steps will be taken in relation to it, then I would say the Government has the capacity to bring amendments specifying those details. The Government has the capacity to bring in secondary legislation, if it wishes to, by regulation or to bring amendments in respect of how it would like inspections to be conducted. Frankly, the Government is suggesting that we cannot move forward.”
“I want a clear report to the Oireachtas in terms of how the Government plans to move forward and make sure our laws are properly enforced and upheld.”
“We have brought forward amendments in relation to the authorised persons. There are additional benefits that will facilitate addressing gaps that the Government has indicated it believes might be in the law. It would also strengthen the capacity of the public, who care so deeply about this matter. That is why we saw Lelia Doolan, at the age of 91, walking right across the country to bring attention to it. These are all gaps that we are addressing and that is what we have done with our time. I am sad regarding every month in which this Bill has not been put in place and in which the existing laws have not been properly applied. I want to know what the Government has been doing for the past 12 months.”
“This Bill is an opportunity for the Government to, first, apply the actual laws of our State and ensure that they are applied. Any other gaps or excuses that make it difficult to apply the laws are addressed in these amendments. This Bill is about no more excuses. This Bill is about upholding the core principle reflected in our base law, which is that no arms, weapons, tools of destruction or dual-use goods should be going our Irish airspace or airports. That is the core position. The Government must stop making exemptions that allow it to happen and stop avoiding carrying out inspections, which would force it to admit that it knows. I would like clarity from the Government of how it has used the time. As I said, we have very much engaged in good faith. We have tackled all the issues that have been raised.”
“At least a year ago, we were hearing language to the effect that the Government was trying to approach this matter through our existing laws and that it was going to do something. In the intervening 12 months, there has been nothing. What has happened in that time? People have continued to die, even since the ceasefire in Gaza was implemented. There have been 750 more documented deaths in the interim. We have seen the brutal actions that have been taking place in the West Bank. We have seen extraordinary violations of international law taking place in Lebanon, where Israel seems to be acting with total impunity. I will come to it later, but in the meantime other countries have begun to act. Ireland has maintained the same standing-still position of ask not, know not.”
“The line at the time from the Minister was that we have an existing legal regime that needs to be used to its fullest and that our existing legislation provides for the inspection of civilian aircraft where there is an appearance or likelihood that such aircraft will depart Ireland and contravene Irish law. We have strong provisions in place. As I said, we are going to try to address the lacuna relating to those flights that have not landed in Ireland. Here is the thing. During the past year, there have been zero inspections. We are still seeing no inspections of aircraft despite numerous recorded instances of flights carrying weapons, arms and the tools of destruction and death through our airspace and our airports. We have seen nothing from the Government. In fact, the language has become more cautious. There has been a pullback.”
“This is something on which we have done a lot of work. We have engaged in very good faith regarding any of the concerns that were raised on Committee Stage or at our meetings with the Department. We have come up with solutions that will really help the Government to ensure that the laws of the State are being applied and respected. There is a problem, however. That is what we have been doing with our time. In the 12 months of the timed amendment requested by the Government for it to work on these issues, it is not clear what, if anything, the Government has been doing. We have heard nothing about investigations.”
“If there is a concern now, it would be clear that a person would be able to contact An Garda Síochána and that members of the latter, as named authorised persons, would be able to act accordingly. Again, this is a useful amendment that strengthens the ability of the public to know who to contact in relation to these instances. I am going to come to this somewhat later, but we are also seeking to address a gap in the 1973 Act regarding the weak enforcement powers in relation to aircraft flying over Ireland that are, as I said, operating in contravention of the order and the crew of which have not even bothered to seek permission or exemptions. Our amendment No. 7 will close that gap and strengthen and give the powers to the Minister and, again, other authorised persons to issue instructions for these aircraft to land in such instances.”
“Having a definition of "authorised person", which includes anyone appointed by the Minister but also An Garda Síochána, means that if people are concerned that it may be planned for a flight to illegally transit our airspace in a way that is going to be in violation of the air navigation Act and in the absence of the legally required permissions or exemptions from the relevant Minister being sought, they can report it to An Garda Síochána. This is an important point with which to begin our discussion. We should bear in mind that the core position is meant to be the prohibition of the transit of arms, weapons, munitions or dangerous goods, which include, of course, such technologies of war, exemptions occasionally made and with inspections to back it up. That has not been happening.”
“In the case of overflights we know what is in the manifest but, effectively, there have been no steps to investigate or take further action. The amendment to change and establish the definition of "authorised person" seems quite technical but while the Minister said everybody should report instances, the question is to whom should they report them? People let the Department know. Is this the right thing to do if someone knows there is a flight carrying weapons, and they know what those weapons will do and where they are destined for? People have contacted the Garda but the Garda does not seem to have a role in it. The Garda might contact the airport authorities. Now, we have a clarity.”
“The Minister stated on Committee Stage that the Department was investigating these but there has been no update or progress on these investigations. There has been no evidence of what has been done on the documented instances of flights containing weapons transiting through our airspace, in some cases without any of the necessary permissions and no action being taken. At the time the Minister said where allegations are made in whatever publications, or if Senators have specific information with regard to flights landing in Ireland transporting munitions, they should be brought forward. He said that allegations already been made in the media are being actively investigated. However, there is a gap in relation to overflights.”
“The definition will also address another issue highlighted, regarding the many instances we have heard about throughout the media in 2024, 2025 and 2026 of commercial airlines illegally carrying weapons through Irish airspace and the details and flight manifests pointing to the types of weapons and tools of death on board. Later, I will read some of these details. Let us be clear that this is not a technical issue. These are weapons, munitions or technologies that are directly related to the infliction of death, injury and other abuses on individuals, which have been travelling directly or indirectly to Israel. We know this has been happening. There have been flight manifests that literally tell us what is on a plane that flies over Ireland's airspace and the Department has been made aware of these instances.”
“6 removes the reference to a member of the Defence Forces, which is no longer needed because we have an inserted definition of "authorised person". I am grateful to colleagues in the House and officials in the Department of Transport who engaged on the issue of the definition and the need for clarity in the definition on who will be performing the actions under the Bill. This could also bring greater clarity on who could be performing the actions under the existing law. Authorised persons include members of An Garda Síochána and any person who might be appointed by the Minister for the purposes of the Bill. This addresses one of the concerns raised on Committee Stage regarding clarification on an authorised person.”
“Amendment No. 1 and the related amendments, which are consequential amendments that flow from it, insert the definition of an "authorised person" into the Bill. This is the same wording as is in the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1988. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 remove subsequent instances of "authorised officer" in the Bill and replace them with the phrase "authorised person". Issues were raised on Committee Stage regarding what constitutes an authorised officer. These amendments address this question. In the 1988 Act, authorised persons are entitled to inspect planes for the purpose of ensuring the aircraft are safe to fly. Therefore, it is a natural continuation to have the same definition here. Amendment No.”
“I move amendment 1: In page 3, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: " "authorised person" means— (a) a person, or a person belonging to a class of persons, authorised in writing by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred to an authorised person under this Act, or (b) a member of An Garda Síochána;".”
“I urge the Minister of State to accept the amendment. It is a very small shift from "practicable" to "emergency". It would allow for contingencies and would send a useful signal down the line from the Minister of State as to how the legislation is to be implemented as we move towards, hopefully, getting to a situation where this never occurs.”
“The bar can be a bit low, or could be lowered, with regard to "in so far as is practicable". As a phrasing it is not as strong as we would like to have. The phrase "emergency circumstances" allows for those exceptional and, hopefully, very rare circumstances, as suggested by the Senators. It would not lead to the risk, which I know might not be the intention of the Minister of State or the practice intention of others, of a practice developing in the future whereby if there is always a space in a particular place, and people know they can get a space there, it would be very "practicable" as it is available. There might be a situation whereby the nearest appropriate facility is further away so the nearer option might be used even if it is not ideal. Having as hard a language as possible is better and a better safety net.”
“The Minister of State will recall we discussed that the full prohibition on the placing of children in adult psychiatric facilities is something the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has specifically called for. The amendments that have been ruled out of order reflected an attempt to be true to this prohibition. At a minimum the language in amendment No. 35 is quite a reasonable compromise. We know that "in so far as is practicable" is quite a wide framing. We have had constitutional debates in this country about the difference between what is practicable and what is possible and where the bar lies and sits. It can make a massive difference. Unfortunately, "practicable" can be interpreted in a very diluted way as what is easiest and most convenient to do.”
“There are many specific examples of where care is needed at the intersection between the rights of persons with disabilities and questions around mental health services. It would be good to have that frame and reference. It would remind all those who look to the new legislation that we need to be coming from a rights perspective. We are not managing a problem in society; we are coming with a rights frame when we deliver the supports and services needed. There is very good reason for this and it is not a stick to try to hit the Government with. These are tools and frames that allow for better legislation and better implementation of legislation as we go forward. I am happy to support those amendments.”
“One of the areas I wish to acknowledge and which I feel very strongly about is the rights of older people. I used to work with the Older and Bolder advocacy organisation in the past. I consulted with older people in residential care homes right across Ireland on health policies that affected them which they were so often not consulted on. However, there are issues, for example, as regards things like congregated settings. We know there are persons with disabilities who are in congregated settings, which raises the question of how their rights are being properly vindicated when they are not being given independence in so much of the day-to-day decisions about their lives. This is often not due to any mental capacity lack, but rather to do with questions of the physical.”
“A way to reflect that is referencing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the Bill and in our legislation. Again, those are two ways we can show that we did not just sign up but that we want to make it happen. If the new laws that come through reflect that, as well as that question of individuals being able to access their rights under the optional protocol, that would be meaningful. That is why we are pushing for this; it is a way of signalling we are doing things differently. I know the Minister of State is trying to do things differently with the legislation but the way of signalling that is one of the frames within which she is operating. Again, I do not want to go into the examples regarding the rights of persons with disabilities as there are many we could discuss.”
“That is why there is a real desire for that to be there in the Bill. We then come to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I was on the first disability matters group which was formed following the long battle to have ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The thing is, we have signed up to it and when we signed up to it, we were technically bound by it. The problem is in giving effect to the fact we have signed up to it and there were two strands to that. One related to the optional protocol and the endless wait that was there for years in terms of it allowing individuals to vindicate their rights under the convention, while the other side of it was for the State to show it recognised that by signing up to this convention, it meant it had to do things differently.”
“I recognise the Minister of State is looking to increase capacity and find appropriate settings, but that prohibition is something the committee was speaking of and that is not necessarily here in the Bill in the same way. Issues and concerns have been identified. Tying it back to not just this kind of theoretical convention on the rights of the child but to the engagement Ireland has had with the committee on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and what it has been saying, that very real process is something that would strengthen the Bill. That is why referencing that convention within the Bill would strengthen it and would lead to more confidence that those areas and issues identified previously or perhaps in the future by the committee on the rights of the child would have an urgency in its response.”
“That is not just everybody in the care system, but also in a family there may not be somebody who has that capacity. That is where the independent advocacy piece is different. It is something more. The youth advocacy programme the Minister of State mentioned is a great kind of programme which families are benefiting from, but the issue is around ensuring that becomes the standard and is there for everybody. That is the piece. The Minister of State will recall from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that one of the recommendations of the committee was that there would always be an independent advocate available in every case relating to children and it was one of the things it wanted cemented. It also wanted explicit prohibition around the placing of children with mental health issues in adult psychiatric units.”
“Along with Senator Black from my group and others, I am happy to be supporting both of these amendments. As regards the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Minister of State spoke about, it is not only this convention but also in this State, we had a referendum on the rights of a child just a short decade or so ago in which we tried to enshrine that into the Constitution. There is a fundamental thing that should flow from this, whereby we cement the rights of the child and I recognise the efforts throughout the Bill on this, even just in terms of what the Minister of State was saying earlier. She mentioned the nominated individuals and it is absolutely a step forward, and I acknowledge that. However, not everybody has somebody appropriate or has access to an individual who can be nominated on their behalf.”
“41 to ensure the commitment - not just her personal commitment - and recognition of independent advocacy as a crucial part of our mental health architecture in this State is visible within the Bill, and that we know there will be that follow-through. I genuinely think this is something that will make the Minister of State’s work easier.”
“If the Minister of State is committed to bringing forward the advocacy piece, and I believe she is, then having a report named and identified in the Bill and having that requirement strengthens her hand because I do not doubt that she, individually at Cabinet, and others are pushing for this to be brought forward. It makes the Government’s hand stronger if the Minister of State says, “In fact, it is nailed down in the legislation that I have to deliver on this.” When the Minister of State says she wants resources allocated in September in the budget for this, and for it to be fully independent and properly resourced so that it can be independent, that would strengthen her hand. I urge her to consider accepting either amendment No. 38 or No.”
“107, what we are looking for is to ensure that there would be, if not an advocate, an appropriate representative who would be there in any situation where that was to be involuntarily applied, so that for the individual who may not be able to give consent, there would be somebody there representing them. If we at least had an advocacy system in place, if amendment No. 107 is not accepted, it would mean that if somebody feels they have been mistreated in relation to an intervention such as that, they would be able to take appropriate steps and have that support after the fact. As I said, it is access during and post where we need that advocacy piece. The Minister of State referenced my colleague, Senator Black, who has engaged with her on this and pushed for it.”
“The kinds of situations we have heard about were where patients and their families were unaware of what kinds of medication they were effectively being treated with. That is an appalling piece. On situations of mistreatment, and I know we have moved past this to some extent, amendment No. 107 on electroconvulsive therapy was ruled out of order. However, I know, and I recall historically, how that was abused in the past. When I was a teenager, I had a friend in his 20s who was effectively subjected to electroconvulsive therapy in relation to his sexuality. Effectively, this was the problem that was being addressed. These are extremely invasive processes. In amendment No.”
“38 the Minister of State will see that if we put advocacy pieces in place, the independence of it is there. What is interesting is amendment No. 38 references "operational, structural and financial independence". Saying "independent" is not the same as ensuring independence. The Minister of State mentioned, for example, situations such as nursing homes, congregated settings and situations of care, where advocates may have an institutional relationship that is ongoing and a number of individual clients who are changing. How do we ensure that independence is there? How do we ensure that independent advocacy is being delivered? Fighting for access is the first point, and fighting for access to what you actually need. The second point relates to ensuring you know.”
“They step in but it is not a role that individuals, either those who are accessing mental health support or those who love them, are always necessarily equipped to step into. It should not be the case that we are putting this huge pressure on individuals, or their loved ones, to become champions through a system, when there should be an independent advocacy support they are able to tap into that says, “We understand you and your situation and we are helping you navigate an entire system in a way that is going to make sure your rights are centred and protected in every way.” That is something that is best done in a way that is led by the individuals themselves, but with that kind of professional and independent piece. That is why in amendment No.”
“There is the advocacy support that people need in accessing mental health supports, the advocacy they need within and during the time in terms of how they are treated by the mental health system we have, and the advocacy needed for those who believe they have been mistreated and wish to try and follow up. At each stage in the process, we see those who are lucky enough, perhaps. That is why it is interesting in our amendment, and we talk about caregivers as well, that in some cases there are parents or others who will step into the role of advocacy and are suddenly reading everything. They have to become experts on an entire system, which is not necessarily their background or training.”
“I am very happy to co-sign the amendment with Senator Boyhan. I support amendment No. 38 as well in terms of the review. Amendment No. 41 sets out a very reasonable requirement for a report within nine months in relation to independent advocacy, whereas amendment No. 38 is more detailed, suggesting particular facets that should be part of any review of an independent advocacy service. At the core here is the need, which the Minister of State has acknowledged verbally, for independent advocacy for those accessing services, which comes at multiple points.”
“The Barnados report has been clear on this. In his response, will the Minister of State talk about how he will address this in the delivery of housing and how he will address those forgotten groups, including asylum seekers, migrants, those with disabilities and other groups? Will he talk about how he plans to address the issue of emergency accommodation, its quality and people's rights within it? Will he elaborate on the focus on new-build programmes and the move away from Part V and turnkey pieces? Whenever there is a recession, that is when we see those projects and those public-private partnerships fold and social housing so often takes the hit. How will we ensure that we are doing direct build? Is a State construction company still on the table?”
“Regarding vacant properties, it is still the plan that local authorities are meant to track them down. One of the big gaps is that this money does not go back into local authorities. If that money were allowed to become part of the fund that local authorities could then use to develop for housing, that would have made a difference in terms of the appallingly poor application of derelict housing and vacant property taxes. I will finish by talking about the quality of emergency accommodation. The Department does not give us the figures for how long, but we know 3,000 single households have been in it for more than one year while 1,400 have been in emergency accommodation for more than two years. Many families are raising children in emergency accommodation that is not appropriate or developmentally safe for children.”
“It had a surplus and a suspension of the fiscal rules, it had access to zero percent financing and wasted that five-year period. It has again become a discussion about the viability gap and how to get private finance moving. That needs to be acknowledged when we move forward. There is still a huge focus on mobilising private investment and not on public investment. That public investment is now in a more difficult circumstance than it would have been if we had taken the opportunity when it was there. Another opportunity was there in 2017, when our group brought forward legislation on vacant properties. That is almost a decade ago. We were told it was constitutionally difficult to do anything in that area. However, we still see a bad plan.”
“The former Minister, Paschal Donohoe was always praised for his supposed fiscal prudence, yet he missed a five-year window during which the EU fiscal rules were suspended, when the State could and should have invested in housing and when the Opposition was crying out for it. In that five-year period, zero percent loans were available. We heard repeatedly that we need private investment and private investment will have to be encouraged. Private investment is encouraged by making sure it is not paying taxes back to the State at the same level and by making sure developers get their money back for connections. This is all public subsidising to bridge what has been called the viability gap. In fact, the State could have been building.”
“They want what makes them more profits: fewer sticks, less pressure, less regulation, lower standards and public subsidies for private profit-making. Time and again that has been given. The rules have been bent or abandoned, capital gains tax waivers here, suspension of normal planning process there and it has not delivered. I welcome the recognition of the need for direct delivery now. There is a fundamental issue in that the new strategy still has the language of old build programmes. It mentions that they cannot rely on Part V and turnkeys because they are negated by conditions.”
“There is a line in the new strategy on disability and housing that I welcome. However, that does not feature in these stark figures. These are the missing pieces. Those shocking figures are in fact worse. Alongside that we have to look at the money-making and the fact that average rent since 2014 has doubled and house prices have increased by 91% in less than ten years. Wages have not doubled. No other aspect of life has doubled for people but rent and house prices have doubled. This is the tension because the Government has consistently focused on supporting the housing market and those whose goals, legitimate goals from a shareholder's perspective, are about making the most out of the property market. The Government has constantly gone to those same people and asked them what would they like.”
“The official figures indicate a 431% increase in those in emergency accommodation and a 628% increase in children in emergency accommodation over the past ten years. Those figures do not include those in State emergency homeless accommodation, those in own-door temporary accommodation or those in domestic violence refuges. They do not include asylum seekers or those sleeping rough. They do not include the thousands of hidden homeless who are staying with friends and families in insecure situations. They do not include those with disabilities or older people who are in congregated settings that are unsuitable for them because those with disabilities should be accommodated under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, that we passed, being supported in independent housing. Those people do not feature.”
“We have heard the stark figures everybody has been outlining. The sad thing is homelessness is related to, flows from and has been accepted for far too long as an unfortunate side consequence of Government policy, which has focused constantly on the property market and on housing and development, rather than on the issue of housing as homes and as shelter. The figures are stark. I will focus on the period from July 2014 when there were 3,258 people homeless. In March 2026 there were 17,308. That is a 431% increase. We need to cut through the narrative that we have been doing our best and we are picking up the pace. It has been getting worse over the period while the same parties were in government and constantly taking a similar approach.”
“We are now in a situation where people like Seán Binder and many individuals who have taken action in being the champions of human rights, in doing those rescues in the Mediterranean and in supporting it, are being faced with charges and have to fight for their freedom for having acted in that very decent way in solidarity. It is something to reflect on the Catalpa and to reflect on what right now are the equivalent gestures and actions that we should be taking as a nation that eventually won its freedom and took its place among the nations of the world on the basis of certain principles, including neutrality, human rights and global solidarity.”
“I am glad that we are marking it. I ask that we use the story of the Catalpa mission, which went across oceans to rescue six people from prison, to reflect on what the equivalents are now. I suggest the equivalents are things like the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is working with the United Nations to try to establish humanitarian corridors into Gaza. We in Ireland might reflect on our more recent history when just a decade ago, Ireland and the Irish navy were rescuing 8,000 people a year - 8,000 lives - from the Mediterranean. This is something we chose to stop doing and to instead move from a humanitarian focus to a security one - that was the then Minister of State, Paul Kehoe, at the time - thereby moving away from that specific and I would say honourable, heroic and humanitarian role Ireland and our Irish navy used to play.”