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 25 of 38.
“I welcome the Minister of State's reference in his speech to the importance of the international legal order, with the UN at its centre. Sadly, we are seeing a turn away from international law by some of our colleagues across Europe. There has been a move away from international law and that diplomacy - people have praised Ireland on its record of participating in that diplomacy - towards a "might is right" version of diplomacy, where Europe is standing idly by as war crimes are committed and wars are started from fear of economic impact, opportunism or a sense of powerlessness. After the illegal strikes on Iran by Israel and the United States, the most recent of many such illegal actions, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated: International legal assessments will have relatively little effect.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit chuig an díospóireacht an-tábhachtach seo. This is a very important discussion for Ireland's upcoming Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which is coming at a critical point for the European Union. It is an opportunity for Ireland to promote and reaffirm both the founding spirit and the core values of the European Union that its citizens hold dear. I am worried we have lost focus on them in recent years. The EU came into being following the horrors of the Second World War and following the centuries before that of division within Europe and of colonialism across the world by many European countries. It seemed to be a new point where we were looking at the idea of those core values and principles. It came at the same time as the formation of the United Nations.”
“-----a performative cruelty contest whereby we try to ensure that those fleeing situations of fear and terror are subjected to fear and difficulty when they are going through the immigration process. It was mentioned that we are unique. We are unique because we are a country that has the experience of being colonised and of sending millions of our own citizens abroad in situations of distress. Let us look to dignity, warmth and kindness in terms of how we receive people and not to a frame of management, performative cruelty or dissuasion.”
“I will also be looking at safe countries. I will finish with a single sentence. I will list all of the issues we can deal with on Committee Stage. Crucially, however, we need to learn from what is happening in life and, indeed, in some European countries and not go into a world with that line uttered by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, which I am still chilled by, namely, "I am committed to ensuring that Ireland is not viewed more favourably than the UK by those seeking to claim asylum." We do not want to enter-----”
“I am coming to a conclusion. Crucially, there are no provisions in respect of free legal advice. There is the undefined term "legal counsel", as others have said, and the absolutely disgraceful idea that there was consideration given to looking at chatbots in the context of giving people advice that may determined their lives. I flag the fact that I will be commenting further on facial image data.”
“-----those who are in need of medical need will receive treatment. Again, the EU reception conditions directive refers to necessary healthcare, whereas the Bill only provides for health assessment in cases where there is a need for urgent healthcare. That does not cover all of necessary healthcare.”
“Civil servants will be able to search through the belongings of a person and retain any items in the absence of any clear receipting procedures, even though some of those items may be crucial to a person's application or well-being. There is no adequate healthcare provision. It is not indicated how refugees and-----”
“I have huge concerns around the screening application process and the fact that children can be subjected to medical assessments on the basis of vaguely defined doubts, including doubts arising on foot of statements they make to civil servants in the Department of justice. The threshold for this is too low. It allows for individual prejudice or misperception on the part of a civil servant to lead to a child not being treated. We should remind ourselves that we not that long ago we voted to put the rights of the child in our Constitution. I would also question some of the family reunification processes that are proposed, particularly in the context of consistency with the rights of the child, and what we have heard in terms of vulnerability screenings and the fact that people may be protective in their first language.”
“These are much more serious in that they are detention facilities where people are forcibly detained and where there may be a profit and motivation in relation to the detention of persons. We have seen how that panned out elsewhere. The chief inspector can inspect but does not have enforcement powers. Section 210(2) states: The Chief Inspector shall not be required to give an account of before a committee for any matter which is or has been, or may be at a future date, the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State. This is gagging accountability to the Oireachtas. Let us consider our history of detention, the mother and baby homes, etc. Do we want a situation where the chief inspector either cannot be required to or cannot speak to an Oireachtas committee in relation to the conditions they have identified?”
“There are huge concerns about the safety standards of the screening centres and detention facilities. The Minister can designate anywhere to be a screening centre and detention facility. Under section 217, the Minister can engage in contracts. Others have spoken about the huge profiteering and issues about the way it has taken place. For something that has been coming for a long time - the protests in direct provision centres began over a decade ago - the State could have had its own better, properly regulated facilities in place by this point but instead we have continued to move towards the private sector. I am concerned in particular around the role of chief inspector. While it is welcome that he or she can inspect these facilities, we have a litany of reports on previously bad conditions in direct provision.”
“The breadth of the powers is significant and raises questions about the relevant training immigration officers may get. Currently, the minister can simply appoint them under section 3 of the Immigration Act. There are none of prerequisite requirements or criteria there that there might be for a member of An Garda Síochána. Will there be a recruitment drive to find the officials for this role? How do we know what the training, experience, backgrounds and motivation of those who take up these roles may be? There are so many areas of concern that I do not have time to discuss them all. I emphasise, especially as the Government plans to bring its own amendments, that there must be sufficient time allocated on Committee Stage and this Bill must not be guillotined. That is crucial. I will highlight two or three other issues.”
“When we look at the protests in the United States against Trump's immigration policies we have seen citizens try to protect their neighbours and loved ones as the policies attack the fabric of their communities and here in Ireland we have seen the distress caused, within schools for example, by the deportation of much-loved members of schools and other communities. Are we now looking at a situation where those who seek to intervene could themselves be liable for prison sentences? This is a dangerous situation where we may see immigration officers locking up non-Irish nationals in cars or random places of detention and those who protest may themselves face, or at least be threatened with, the possibility of prison. It would have a chilling effect on the solidarity we would hope for within society.”
“They do not even need to be taken to a screening centre; they can simply put into a place of detention, and we will come to how widely that has been defined later, or even detained in a vehicle for up to 12 hours, under section 24(4)(b). Again, we have seen in the United States the fishing expeditions in terms of migration and the culture of fear that can create. Anyone who tries to intervene in an arrest, for example tries to indicate an arrest is a case of mistaken identity, can themselves be subject to a 12-month prison sentence.”
“Section 22 (5) allows a garda or immigration officer to issue a direction to a non-Irish national registered under the Immigration Act, and their children, to go to an asylum screening centre where they have "reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the best interests of public policy". That is incredibly undefined. It does not refer to "in the public interest", which is a term we have heard previously in legislation and we know how it might be interpreted, but simply in the interests of public policy. That is not a balancing thing. Is that a memo, a press release, a Minister who decided he or she wants to take a hard line? That is concerning and unclear. If anyone refuses to follow such a direction to a screening centre, they can be arrested and detained under section 24.”
“Clearly, there is a different law enforcement culture in this country and we hope it will continue but the foundations within the Bill allow for a shift towards a culture that is more authoritarian. They set in place measures which, under authoritarian instincts or drives, could be misused and could lead to us breaching human rights. As we have seen from events in the United States, the consequences when there is this kind of shift towards authoritarianism resonate far beyond asylum seekers and refugees and into the communities and society we share and the tone of the communities and society we share. This is not hyperbolic. Let us be specific.”
“The real issues are failure to deliver on housing and health investment and to properly plan. Even as recently as the Housing for All policy, it did not include "all" because it did not look at the very real trends in terms of migration and demographics and plan for them. Instead, those individuals were treated as a crisis rather than a part of our natural responsibilities and our responsibilities under international protection. That was entirely predictable. Parts of the Bill are shocking. The level of power given to the Minister, immigration officers, gardaí and even civil servants replicates aspects of what we have seen in the United States in relation to ICE.”
“When we opened this debate we heard figures of there being 55,000 applications over three years. For perspective, there were 122 million people displaced in 2025 and there are 43.7 million refugees worldwide. We only need to look to see the conflict worldwide and the huge parts of the world that are becoming unlivable due to the climate crisis and, frankly, murderous economic policies in some cases, as well as conflict and war, the responsibility for which needs to be addressed. Frankly, Ireland, as a country with a significant surplus, must look to the fact we have failed to provide proper provision. It is not acceptable for a country like us to say we are overwhelmed or to suggest that the numbers are high; they are not. They are incredibly low on an international level.”
“When we talk about stepping up, it is about Ireland having the courage to champion international law. That includes the occupied territories Bill. These are the examples. If we do not champion international law and if we are worried about even referring to the idea that a big country we are friendly with might breach international law, then we are really in a dangerous position and on a slippery slope. I would not want a Government that is not able to be clear and strong on this issue to be in a position whereby it can make decisions about the military deployment of our troops and the removal of the triple lock. This is an example of why we need to be very careful, thoughtful and act in a way that allows us to genuinely champion de-escalation in a manner that is credible.”
“It is to bypass the UN process in relation to decisions about military deployment. When bypassing the UN system, who will decide whether it is a matter of international law or relevance? We were told that it would be those who were taking the actions, which may include some coalition of the willing. However, even those who were advocating for this position had to admit it was not when we asked if they thought the last time Israel bombed Iran was in line with international law or appropriate. All of our many EU leaders were welcoming it, though. We are in that situation again. It is a very dangerous road if we start going into a parallel system where it is solely about might is right and not a situation of actual right and law and looking at it in a certain way. Ireland can be such a leader here.”
“We see in RTÉ's reports international experts talking about the perception that much of Europe - they do not include Ireland in it at the moment - seems to be abandoning references to international law. We need to be clear. I have repeatedly tried to raise human rights abuses in Iran with the foreign affairs committee. Regardless of one's position on that, international law is the safeguard for us all. This came up during the defence committee's hearings on the triple lock, which I sat in on, because the last time that Israel bombed Iran was during those. The experts were telling us not to worry if we were not going through the UN General Assembly, the Security Council or any other UN process. Bear in mind, the proposed removal of the triple lock is not a safety net if the UN process fails.”
“I join the comments on the incredible disappointment regarding the decision on Bessborough. It was on the exact same day that the Government chose to vote down our legislation that would have expanded the remit and possibility for interventions in relation to inappropriate burial. A line that I still find shocking was that "high mortality rates could sadly sometimes be a feature of historical congregated settings". The context here is that, in Bessborough, there was a 75% mortality rate among children in one year. That is shocking. On the day in question, planning permission was granted. It is a disgrace. I join with Senator Clonan in saying it is disappointing if our Minister for foreign affairs is not able to clearly identify the question of international law.”
“I move amendment No. 16: After “calls for:”, to insert the following paragraph: “- Ireland to engage constructively with the Digital Omnibus and AI Omnibus proposals by the European Commission and advocate against measures which would reduce data protections and dilute regulation and enforcement, and to work to strengthen controls in relation to algorithms, recommender systems and the protection of creative work;””
“I move amendment No. 15: After “calls for:”, to insert the following paragraph: “- the adequate enforcement of the provisions that already exist in the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 which prohibit the generation and sharing of child sexual abuse material, and intimate image abuse;””
“I move amendment No.12: In the eleventh paragraph under “calls for:”, to delete the first sub-paragraph and substitute the following sub-paragraph: “- supporting Coimisiún na Meán to improve awareness, reporting, investigation, and sanction or prosecution of AI-generated non-consensual intimate images;””
“I move amendment No. 11: To delete the tenth paragraph under “calls for:”, and substitute the following: “- the full consideration of Digital Ireland’s 20 high-level objectives and 90 specific deliverables;””
“I move amendment No. 10: To delete the ninth paragraph under “calls for:”, and substitute the following: “- the Government to advocate for the development of robust regulatory safeguards at the EU level, to protect children, young people, and vulnerable persons from harm in online spaces;””
“I move amendment No. 9: To delete the seventh paragraph under “calls for:”, and substitute the following: “- Ireland to advance and implement the EU’s AI Act during our presidency, and advocate for further reform of the Digital Omnibus Regulation to strengthen data protection for citizens, and provide robust protections for creatives whose work is used to train AI models without consent or compensation;””
“I move amendment No. 8: To delete the fifth paragraph under “calls for:”, and substitute the following: “- Ireland’s Council Presidency to reflect our ambition to be at the forefront of digital innovation and online safety; and to advocate for robust safeguards to protect children, young people, and vulnerable persons from harm in online spaces;””
“I move amendment No. 7: To delete the second paragraph under “calls for:”, and substitute the following: “- the Government to consider and engage with the risks and benefits of digital technologies and AI, and to provide robust safeguards in relation to the use of these tools in our public services;””
“I move amendment No. 6: To delete the first paragraph under “calls for:”, and substitute the following: “- Ireland to support a strong and responsible digital sector within the economy including indigenous innovation, while protecting data privacy and fundamental rights;””
“My apologies. That is exactly the point on advertisements. We already said, as a House, that advertising to children should not be allowed. However, it has never been commenced as a section. I would like an answer on that.”
“I have to mention, in a single line, one of my most important amendments. It is about this whole House. I really want an answer from the Minister of State. I refer to my amendment calling on the Government to implement, or amend and implement, section 30 of the Data Protection Act 2018, which this House passed unanimously after it had been proposed by the Government.”
“However, if we try to have a little chat about safety on the fringes of a conversation that is urging the industry to go faster, we will not be stepping up to what I think is one of our greatest moral responsibilities to our colleagues across Europe. I really urge that safety and strengthening regulation be the centrepiece and that we do not let that be marred by the desire for more and faster money-making in this area.”
“Not just that, but what is also in Coco's Law is the threat to distribute. The very fact of Elon Musk standing there saying "Here is a picture of me in a bikini; you can do this to anyone" is, right there, a threat to distribute inappropriate images. I do not accept that Coco's Law cannot be applied, and I certainly do not accept that the child pornography legislation - it should be called the child sexual abuse material legislation, as Senator Flynn said - cannot apply. I really urge that we have an honest discussion because we have an immense power here in Ireland as key regulators. We are going to be key during the EU Presidency.”
“What we actually need is awareness, reporting, investigation, sanction and prosecution of the AI generated non-consensual images. Sadly, we do not have Coimisiún na Meán using the full powers it has under the online safety Act at the moment or the safety code. It is instead deferring to an investigation at European level. Maybe the Minister of State might comment on this. I fundamentally disagree with the language about how Coco's Law unfortunately does not apply as it is not distribution. Let us be clear: it is distribution. Grok does not create and sell the link. If you were to ask Grok to create an image, it creates that image. I know they will not say they publish it. It makes that image in the public space so that the public can see. It has distributed that image, to be clear.”
“Let us be clear: we are not in an adequate issue. That discussion about horrendous business practices by major, wealthy corporations has somehow segued into being all about the discussion of children and 16 and that age. I acknowledge that Senator O'Loughlin said it is not actually the kind of golden bullet that is presented. It has to be wider. Unfortunately, in the motion that is the focus piece. I will highlight two important things that I have amendments on. I hope amendment No. 12 might be supported. It focuses on the idea in the motion that we can protect children by "supporting Coimisiún na Meán to improve awareness and reporting" of these images. By referring to "awareness and reporting", we are again putting it back on the children.”
“What I am concerned at, and we need to be honest, is the dynamic. I have amendments on this. The digital omnibus, which is happening right now, is not about strengthening and closing the loopholes. It is about more loopholes and more self-regulation. It is about taking whole sections out of GDPR to make exemptions to data protection for the training of AI algorithms. That is what is in the omnibus. That needs to be challenged. If Ireland was serious, we would be challenging that rather than following. I support amendments Nos. 2 and 3, in the names of Senators Sarah O'Reilly and Mullen, because they are honest about the language. They say that "recent controversies around the use of deep-fake technologies ... reveal the lack of an enforcement culture and the inadequacy of regulatory structures," and they need to be stricter.”
“Strangely, in the middle of a motion about online safety there a reference to "the full implementation of Digital Ireland’s 20 high-level objectives and 90 specific deliverables". Just to be clear, I looked at the deliverables. One of them is to "Implement the ‘Large Energy User Action Plan’ to attract ... very [high] energy intensive industrial developments." Where is that in online safety? Where is the consideration? I am worried that in the actual cause, it is all about the economic bit. The motion also contains language like "the misuse of digital tools." Let us be clear. We know these tools are designed. It is not they are being misused or that the wrong people are using them. It is how these tools are designed. I agree and support the idea that we should not just be advancing but implementing the AI Act.”
“There is an economic push as well. Ireland is trying to ride these two horses by speaking about how we want to be great regulators but also about how we want to really fast-track it and make all our public services use AI as quickly as possible. We want to have it permeate every area of society and get as many data centres built as quickly as possible, but we also want to be respected regulators. I actually agree with Senator Mullen. You can look to both, but you need to choose a priority. Sadly, that is not really reflected in this motion when we look at the language. There is a reference to how we need to "reap the benefits". I again suggest that we should be looking at the risks.”
“Thank you. I am grateful to have the debate. I acknowledge the sincerity of the contributions made by Government Senators but there is a deep tension here. There has been a recognition of the areas of concern and the speeches we have heard are driven by concern, but so many of the calls in the motion are about the economy. There needs to be an honest discussion and that is what a number of my amendments do. It has almost become an article of faith that any time you mention AI you must begin by saying it has wonderful benefits and referring to the wonderful benefits of AI. You have to begin with that and then act as if there are some accidents that happen along the way, or it is unfortunate the children got to it. In fact, we need to be clear that there is a genuine and heavily lobbied agenda, which is about the dilution of protections.”
“This is part of a litany of exclusion and it is another sign of a State unwilling to engage, learn and constructively and genuinely build a future in which we can be proud of our State.”
“To be clear, the State has excluded those receiving an apology today from the residential redress Act. It has excluded those who would not relinquish control over their own stories with a gagging order under section 28. There are exclusions in terms of who received redress under the mother and baby homes scheme. There are exclusions around whose suffering is recognised. Now we have further exclusions regarding which deaths and burials might be recognised as being manifestly inappropriate and an unwillingness from the Government to even engage in this discussion. Perhaps this is because those who were buried, unlike those who were abused in other ways, will not be able to continue a campaign in the same way for further apologies again and again without action.”
“We can quote the Acts, such as the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1874, which states any person who performs a funeral or religious service or burial of any dead body in relation to which no certificate is delivered should give notice to the registrar. There were already significant requirements at the time. It was not much of a free-for-all. Let us remind ourselves of the figures from Bessborough. A total of 923 children had died at one point and in 1943, three out of every four babies died. That is 75% of babies dying. Of the 923, 107 were not properly reported to the authorities and the commission was only able to identify the locations of 64 burial sites for these children. Tell me this is not inappropriate. Tell those who have spoken about the litany of exclusions.”
“Is the Government saying we have to have fully proved the case and every single site has to have a Catherine Corless who does all the work and uncovers all the facts, and that we have to drag the State forward in every instance? Crucially, the Government states regarding concern about manifestly inappropriate burials that it should be noted there was no legal obligation on private burial grounds to keep a register of burials. That is fine, then. We tried to address this problem when the Act was going through the House. The amendment also states: "high mortality rates could sadly sometimes be a feature of historical congregated settings". It was not okay at the time because there were problems.”
“Only a fragment of those who may have loved ones in Tuam are even allowed to volunteer their DNA and check it. That is another consequence. The State should be willing to learn and improve as it goes on and to come up with something different. I will give a minute to a couple of the reasoned arguments the Government has given for declining to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is concerned about the inclusion of "reasonably likely to have taken place", even though in relation to Bessborough we have "very likely". Would "very likely" be acceptable? Burials are "very likely" to have taken place in Bessborough. That is what the commission on mother and baby homes found. The Government also suggests there would be speculative interventions as opposed to evidential interventions. We explicitly refer to "reasonable evidence".”
“It could have recognised the concerns, recognised the many people whose loved ones are buried in highly inappropriate situations and who died in circumstances that were inappropriate but who do not fit the narrow definitions of "manifestly inappropriate" in the principal Act, and said maybe we need to look at doing something about that. The Government could have told us how it was planning to address the issues arising from it. We waited for four years. We introduced the Bill in 2022 but we waited to see how it would pan out. Maybe, as we were told, other investigations would take place and it would not just be Tuam. It has just been Tuam. A number of other issues have arisen, which we may come to. There is the narrow scope in terms of DNA.”
“There are other grounds that should be considered in terms of "manifestly inappropriate", including where records indicate extraordinarily high death rates at institutions and a lack of proper death or burial records, or other indications of extremely inappropriate action. I could list all the categories in the Bill but the key point is the Bill is being killed in a novel way today. It is being done by means of a reasoned amendment. Effectively, the Government will avoid voting against the Bill but will vote for an amendment to say, "Let's be against the Bill". A number of options were open to the Government. It could have said it had concerns about aspects of the Bill and wanted us to fix them. If the Government really thought the Bill needed time, it could have come in with one of the infamous timed amendments on it.”
“We will come to Bessborough in a minute, but to have a tiny nominal graveyard when there are 900 or more dead children and to say that is the principal burial ground is a concern. We looked very simply to facilitate making an order where "there is reasonable evidence" pointing to a likelihood that inappropriate burials took place on a site. In the incredibly unusual situation of Tuam, the horrendously inappropriate location had already been fully identified. This Bill would allow action where the precise burial ground was not known but where it was known to be in a specific and likely area. Crucially, it widens what we mean by "manifestly inappropriate". The terms were very narrowly constrained in the principal Act.”
“To begin, I will explain a couple of things we were trying to do with this Bill. When the Institutional Burials Act 2022 was being passed, there were concerns that the language was framed so narrowly that, in effect, it would really only relate to Tuam. Other institutions were allowed to be included, but the terms, descriptions and definitions were almost designed to exclude certain well-known cases of great institutional abuse. The debates at the time related to some of the phrases our Bill seeks to address. Some of the problems, regardless of what the Government chooses to do with to our Bill, will remain unaddressed in the principal Act. There were concerns about how "principal burial land" was framed. It was a very narrow definition .”
“The member had a baby in their arms, rescued from the Mediterranean Sea at a time when Ireland rescued 8,000 people in a single year, and stated, "At this moment, you are safe in my arms." The member also stated, "Making a difference is one of the reasons we all joined the [Defence Forces] and, in terms of making a difference, this was really second to none." Yet, in 2017 the Government moved, when former Deputy, Paul Kehoe was the Minister, from primarily humanitarian search and rescue operations to primarily security and interception operations. Ireland is losing the unique contribution that made people proud to be a part of our Defence Forces by losing ourselves in a military agenda that is, in fact, turning its back on our humanitarian contribution to the world. I urge us to look to our strengths and lean into them.”