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 26 of 38.
“I will make one last point, but I have so many. I see we are going to have new powers of inspection in the naval area. That is fine. Why are we not using our powers of inspection and boarding in respect of the flights we know are moving through Shannon Airport at the moment? We know that Palestinian prisoners have been taken through the airport. It does not seem that a waiver was sought for the weapons that may have been on board. Perhaps a waiver was given and we are unaware of it. I will finish shortly. I have a tiny quote that is important. It is a simple one. It is from a former member of the navy, who was involved in Operation Sophia.”
“This is allowing the large-scale deployment of Irish troops by the Government without recourse to the UN for reasons of strengthening international security. This is from an Irish Government that is unwilling to say "Boo" on the areas where it could make a difference, such as international law. If Ireland wanted to be impactful, we would be the champions for international law right now and would be bringing that through. We would be the hardest regulators of those who have sown and promoted disinformation, and of the digital sector, many of whom have been aligned in many ways. The US has two of the largest armies in the world, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. That has not protected it from concerns relating to, for example, Russian influence. What protects us is the international rule of law.”
“The other point that must be noted in the context of the removal of the triple lock is that there is a proposal that is not about peacekeeping. It is also about strengthening international security. They are looking to bypass the UN process. This is, as I said, not about adding a safeguard that comes after a failure to secure permission for peacekeeping from the Security Council and the General Assembly. The intention is to directly move towards an alternative way of deploying troops internationally. That is because it is not solely for peacekeeping. The Bill is explicit. It also includes strengthening international security, whatever that might mean, as a reason. We already had exclusions where there were abductions or issues with securing an embassy. All of those were already there as exemptions.”
“We need to be clear what the proposal is. The proposal is not solely in relation to the UN Security Council. There have been strong calls for Ireland to take a strong stance on Uniting for Peace and to make use of the Uniting for Peace mechanism within the General Assembly. That mechanism is under way. No caveat states that these are only deployments that will happen in situations where the Security Council and General Assembly have refused to act. This is a bypassing of the system and the Security Council. It is not an additional action that comes afterwards. It is a bypassing of the United Nations at a time when the UN is being systematically undermined, including by measures such as the Board of Peace, which is, effectively, a colonisers' club to which the EU has, sadly, sent a delegate.”
“They were given to us by the European Commission. We have a breakdown, we have a grid and we know where that money is going. We also know that money being underwritten by Ireland and others through these loans is going to cluster munitions. It was confirmed that the money can go to cluster munitions. We know that, sadly, many of our colleagues in Europe have withdrawn from the anti-personnel mine convention or, in the case of Lithuania and Finland, have withdrawn from the Convention on Cluster Munitions. That convention was negotiated in Ireland. These are key areas of expenditure we have to be asking about but I do not have time to go into further detail. I urge a reading of the finance committee report on defence spending. Let us get back to the question of the triple lock. The word "peacekeeping" has been used again and again.”
“There are also the larger areas of the multi-annual financial framework and our social and cohesion funding. We in Ireland know the importance of social and cohesion funding. It is the actual underpinning of peace. What builds peace is working on, and investing in, social cohesion at a time when we have seen, for example, extreme moves to the right in many parts of Europe. Social cohesion is badly needed. We also saw where the money is going. This again is, in particular, in terms of the loans that Europe and Ireland are underwriting. For those who are concerned about the positions that Hungary and others have taken, €16 billion in loans has been given to Hungary. That is €16 billion in military expenditure by Hungary being underwritten by Ireland and the other member states. These are facts. They are in the finance committee report.”
“It can be broken down into the different points. This was the ambitious target that was set. It can be broken down in terms of parts and aspects. What was being examined by the finance committee was Security Action for Europe, SAFE, and the proposals from the Commission. We heard from the Commission. Its representatives spoke to us for an hour. There is an intention to redirect common investment away from areas such as just transition and climate action. We know that the one guaranteed security threat that we face globally is climate action. The intention is to redirect money out of funds that had previously gone to climate action. That goes right down to those LIFE payments that go to farmers around the country. That money will now go into a competitiveness fund, competing against military expenditure on things such as drones.”
“It is important to be very clear that everybody has called for an improvement in terms and conditions for those working in the Defence Forces, yet it has not been delivered. Nothing about the triple lock or those who talk about peace have in any way inhibited it. That option has been there for the State for a long period. Even while we have had a slow creeping forward on the pay, conditions and terms for those in the Defence Forces, vast amounts have been going into the military industry and Ireland is underwriting huge expenditure in this area. I want to highlight a couple of key points from the finance committee report, which is an agreed report; it is not me saying this. It is the finance committee. Members highlighted serious concerns about the €800 billion that is planned to be spent at EU level.”
“We are speaking about defence, something we have debated a few times. I would suggest that at some point it would be good if we were to have statements on peace. We have statements on defence and security but something we do not have or see enough of are statements on peace and the work of peace. This is the area in which Ireland has the most to contribute, to which Ireland can bring the most and in which Ireland has the record and credibility internationally. I will follow up on something Senator Clonan said. I will discuss expenditure and then move to the triple lock. It has been a choice to have very poor rates for cadets. It has been a choice to have poor pay and conditions for those working in the Defence Forces. That is a choice that has been made by the State during many years of budget surplus.”
“Instead of just doing the minimum, we could set up a mechanism that stands for the ages and would be recognised as part of a supportive infrastructure for the arts. In the past, Ireland marketed and promoted itself as supportive of the arts and should be continuing to do so. I would advise the Minister of State to listen to the artists on this and come back with something a little better on Report Stage.”
“With the Controller of Intellectual Property, we have someone who can look at the patterns and at what is equitable and fair over a number of cases over a long period of time and can develop an expertise. What we have heard is that it is working everywhere else. I particularly welcome the point in amendment No. 2 to ensure that we do not have a slide in terms of what additional deductions may happen. We wold not see it being gradually chipped away. Rather, there would be a requirement for the costs to be justifiable and documented. That is another piece that could chip away at the 50:50. This is Committee Stage and Report Stage is coming. I ask the Minister of State to go back and really consider, particularly in relation to section 208, how this could be done better and how we could avoid the pitfalls.”
“Performing artists are doing huge work, far beyond any money that ever reaches them. The minimum should be that they get a fair and clear share from the money associated with their performances. We know that if we leave it to the Circuit Court, many artists are not going to take a case to resolve a situation such as this. There will not be an equality of arms in that kind of context. Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 set out effective, reasonable mechanisms that those who are the impetus behind this legislation, in that they have successfully argued the point at European level, are saying will work. It is independent. It allows for a controller who can see the pattern of cases rather than a haphazard situation because who knows who you might get in the Circuit Court.”
“The amendment to ensure that the division is fair is being put to the Minister of State because we cannot rely on simple market dynamics to do that when there is often a huge imbalance of power between starting artists and large production companies. The fact that Europe has pointed to the need to ensure that artists are properly reimbursed and their rights reflected is also a point about the huge value that is brought to us by performers, including voice artists and actors. We are already getting dividends as a society from this that they do not get a share in. When we talk about the money being generated, the minimum should be that it is divided. We see how artists are relied on in promoting Ireland abroad, promoting our reputation, generating tourism and being the centrepiece for cultural activity.”
“Why is the Minister of State avoiding or not accepting these amendments that are looking to strengthen the role of the controller as a trusted body in terms of resolving this dispute, as well as looking to a proper CMO in terms of the original decision? It is telling that the case was won at the European level because of the long-standing principle in Europe of l'exception culturelle . This is the very strongly established principle that certain things can be left for the market to decide but other things are of such collective value that there must be active measures from the state to ensure and protect them.”
“I know the Minister of State has said that the Bill will restore compliance with EU and international law but it contains a big hole, in that people may have to continue fighting to be satisfied that they are getting the fair share. In individual instances, they would have relitigate it in the Circuit Court rather than having a trusted system, which is what is being called for. Both amendments look to restore the role of the Controller of Intellectual Property. We have not had significant issues arise. The issues that have arisen are from a situation where producers held an extraordinarily high level of control of being able to tell people what they would get. The controller is not where the problems have arisen, so why this very small role for the Controller of Intellectual Property?”
“I will speak very briefly in support of these amendments proposed by Senators Black, McDowell and Conway. To pick up where Senator Conway left off, this focus on the courts system does seem strange. A lot of this legislation is deriving from the fact that the artists already won their court case. They took the court case. They took it to the European courts and the message that came down was that we needed to have an equitable distribution mechanism. It is almost suggesting that individual artists or groups of performers would now have to continue fighting in each individual instance if they are not happy with the system even though the principle has already been won.”
“More could be done to back those who are trying to document the many crimes Russia is committing and ensure they are fully documented so there is justice in a meaningful way at a later point. There is also the huge humanitarian, medical and rebuilding work. There is a huge amount that can and must be supported and some of us simply have concerns in relation to the military aspects of that. For example, I had questions about cluster munitions and was hoping for their exclusion, but that is a different piece. I am very glad to have cosigned that motion. In looking at peace and the voice Ireland can bring to supporting peace in Ukraine and internationally. One of the things we should do is be champions for international law, be that the ICJ, the International Criminal Court or the UN Charter itself.”
“There is so much that can be done. I have just stepped out of the foreign affairs committee which, as we speak, is discussing peace building and the importance of giving resources to peace building. That is why today's motion, which focuses on the question of a just and lasting peace, and the work of that, is very positive. I regret it was not possible to add the phrase "of international law", which I looked for. I think it was too late to have that added. Referencing that is crucial though because that is where Ireland comes in. We heard today about international law and its crucial role in peace. Take the International Criminal Court. The EU could be doing so much more to back that court, which has issued warrants for Putin and others.”
“I agree with Senator Cosgrove that it was unfortunate and quite disrespectful to the Seanad to see the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 guillotined in such a short manner last week, without even having the opportunity for some amendments to be spoken to, given the significance it has for so many. It is a practice we should be pushing back on collectively as a House. It is unfortunate that a previous speaker tried to take what is a collective motion on the Order Paper today and make it about the €90 billion question. I was there for that debate, which did not centre on the amount of money or on whether it would be spent, but on how it would be spent - on the question of €60 billion for military expenditure versus €30 billion for very important humanitarian rebuilding, which is vital work.”
“A fire safety consequence or risk was identified in relation to that, not a specific dilution - it may be in the fire safety standards - but an associated risk.”
“I was going to say there have been significant concerns regarding the reduction of the number of exits and the size of units. The Minister will be aware that academics have pointed to the changes, not in the fire safety rules, but in apartment design and standards leading to fire safety issues and jeopardy. We have had a narrative about gold-plating which has been accompanied by a quite systematic set of lowering of standards, even at EU level through omnibus measures. It is important to signal these issues and concerns because there are consequences of that. Significant concerns were raised about more units being placed with smaller sizes and less shared access to exits in relation to apartment standards.”
“Maybe it is because they have some genuine concerns the Government should be listening to. Maybe the Minister should be trying to learn better so we do not make mistakes. I do not see an acknowledgement of or learning from those mistakes of the past. I say that with absolute sadness because I want this issue fixed. I will be very happy if this Government manages to fix it but unless there is a level of genuine engagement and recognition of some of the assumptions that have not worked out in the past, I do not see that happening.”
“If such a circumstance occurred that led to downward pressure, I worry that we would end up trapped in the same way as we were trapped in the ten-year leases at unrealistic prices, where councils were paying for properties that they could have bought for a fraction of the cost. Indeed, we all recall the upward-only rent review scandals of the previous years. I say this having had the unfortunate experience of going through two recessions in my time, both the dot-com recession and the 2008 collapse. I urge the Minister to accept one of these amendments in respect of review and show there is a level of learning, understanding and willingness to engage with the fact that when people raise flags it is not just to wave a banner or to use as a stick to beat the Government.”
“The Government should not brainstorm another idea and yet again ram it through without proper consideration of the consequences. This is a genuine appeal to the Minister to accept one of these amendments on the question of review and impact. I will come in later on the question of the downward and upward rents, because I believe there is an issue in section 8 and others in regard to that question. The Minister said rents may go down because of market supply. I do not believe market supply will necessarily drive rents down. What might drive rents down is a large-scale global economic recession, which is being forecast as a possibility. I do not believe the Bill is very well designed in terms of its rent calculators to allow for that to be reflected.”
“Every time the standards were lowered it led not to more housing but, rather, to developers reapplying for planning permission in order to cram in more units, which actually delayed delivery. That is one more example of the inadvertent consequences of policies formed without listening to well-flagged concerns. If the Minister will not accept the well-flagged concerns in terms of the amendments to the substance of the Bill, the very minimum would be to accept amendments on a review in order that, rather than in two years' time looking at the excuses for why it did not work and all of us speculating in that regard, we will have some form of independent assessment of what went wrong and what could have been done better such that maybe we will be able to learn from things this time.”
“Another excuse is to blame local authorities whose hands were tied on housing delivery for many years and whose powers have been chipped away in successive Bills coming through these Houses. The local authorities should absolutely be doing more. They should, for example, be getting that vacant property tax into their own coffers. That would incentivise delivery. The latest excuse frames gold-plated standards for things like basic fire safety as the big issue, decent standards which lead to apartment living being a liveable option for people, as it is in many European countries where there are housing standards. Instead, we have seen the lowering of standards.”
“This is not about bashing the Government; this is about years of hearing constructive ideas, not just from me but from everybody, even Government backbenchers sometimes, which are not listened to, and then the problem happens. While we have not been seeing the construction of housing, what have seen over the past decade is the construction of ever more elaborate excuses. I have seen the excuses moving through, such as, "It is all down to planning objections." We know it is not about planning objections. Look at the figures. Half of the judicial reviews are taken by developers. Most of them were against SHDs, vast numbers of which had planning permission that was not used.”
“That is where the State needs to be coming in with policies and measures that deliver for the public because that is who the State works for. By all means allow the market to prosper but not simply appease or plead with the market to maybe deliver. We have here another set of measures about which people who are more expert on the rental sector than I am, such as Threshold and many others, are flagging problems. They are pointing to the risk of massive spikes in rent. They are pointing to the risk of persons who are forced to move for whatever reasons being in a situation where their rent may be greatly hiked. They are pointing to the dangers of the many notices to quit that we know have come before them. They are flagging reasonable concerns. For the Government to state that it does not even want to agree to a review is unacceptable.”
“There is a fundamental misapprehension that is never challenged, a core wrong starting assumption that we see repeatedly, which is that what the market wants, what shareholders and investors want and what the public needs are aligned. However, they are not necessarily aligned. Investors are entitled to seek profit. That, however, does not care about delivering the public need, which is a secure housing stock, a security of homes that would allow people to plan and live, rent or buy in a way that is secure. They have different goals. Scarcity drives up prices and that benefits shareholders. There is a constant narrative that if we give developers and others what they want and make sure restrictions are not too restrictive, they will somehow magically build or rent a great many houses at a reasonable price. Why would they?”
“I spent three to four years pleading with then Minister, Paschal Donohoe, to let us start using that moment of opportunity, when Ireland had a massive surplus and the EU was not restricting us, to invest heavily in public building. However, we did not do that. That decision was framed as prudent but I do not believe it was. It was a moment when very low interest rates of less than 0% were available to Ireland. Anything we spent then was at 0% interest. There were no restrictions and we had the resources. Moving along, there is case after case on the residential tenancies - issues we pointed to, inadvertent consequences, the loans that went out and drove up the prices when the economic forecast told us they would drive the prices up and that is what happened.”
“You do not lose 80% of your cases because people do not like the development. It happened because the process was poorly done in many cases. Some 40% of those planning permissions were never commenced, never built, because that use it or lose it clause for which the Opposition asked was not put into the legislation. These people got the planning permission and are allowed to build but they have not gone ahead to build. That type of scheme was then abandoned and pushed to the past. There was then the suspension of the EU fiscal rules which we were told were the reason we could not invest massively in public housing for years. We were told the EU fiscal rules would not allow it. However, those rules were suspended for a period.”
“That gives the lie to the narrative that when these apartments are built they will automatically address the housing and homelessness crisis. In many cases, having those properties lie vacant as part of a portfolio with a theoretical rent of €3,000 a month is actually worth more because they can be sold on repeatedly. There is no need to rent them. We know that happens, particularly in Dublin and the city centre. In regard to the strategic housing development system, we pushed for use it or lose it clauses to be attached at that time. Instead, there was fast-track planning permission which led to very poor decisions, many of which were rightly challenged. They were poorly made decisions. We talk about the challenges. Many of those happened only when strategic housing developments were happening because they were done in such a poor way.”
“During that time, the seven-year capital gains tax exemption was definitely used to inflate property prices, quite successfully, during a period of recession, rather than risk letting property prices fall. In 2017, my group brought in legislation asking for proper measures to tackle vacant housing and vacant properties. It was dragged kicking and screaming to a point where now there are some grants and a vacancy tax which is not enforced. This is very relevant because, looking at the increases in vacancy, it is not effective or enforced to the degree it should be. That is relevant to a point made by Senator Andrews earlier. I live in the city centre and I see the empty apartments there which are part of investor portfolios.”
“Senator Cosgrove said the Residential Tenancies Act is getting changed every 18 months. I have seen a litany of bad ideas and poorly thought-through ideas in which there was constructive engagement from the Opposition and civil society, economic experts and others, signalling the potential problems, and an unwillingness to take that on board. I could go through them but the list would be too long. In terms of the question of review, it is relevant to mention a couple of them. The local authorities were being blamed by the Minister. However, they were effectively forced to enter into ten- and 20-year leases during the recession, paying €20,000 a year to rent houses for ten and 20 years which they could have bought for €200,000 and which would then have become part of our public housing stock.”
“I want to rise and speak in favour of all four amendments. I am surprised the Minister is not accepting at least one of them. First, I will deal with the amendment that relates to the Residential Tenancies Board and its capacity and resources. To my mind, that is a no-brainer. It is obvious. There is also an amendment looking for a review of the Act, and the impact it is having. Senator McCarthy's amendment seeks to review the Act within two years. These are very reasonable requests. I have been in this House since 2016. I worked in civil society before that for 15 years. Frankly, the parties of Government have had such a long record of getting things wrong in this area that there should be no hubris here. There should be a level of humility that says we are willing to engage and we want to review the legislation.”
“There have been loans of €16 billion for Hungary to buy armaments, which may or may not include cluster munitions. We have not had assurances on that. I am very concerned about that direction of focus within the EU budgetary process, the simplification narrative and the removal of standards through omnibus legislation, which is moving fast and undercutting a lot of what all of us are proud of in Europe. I am worried that we may not be minding the past or properly minding the future.”
“What I heard from citizens, not just from Ireland but 800 citizens right across Europe, was what they valued about Europe were things like its standards. It raised the bar on equality, on the environment, on digital regulation, crucially, and on employment standards. It raised the bar constantly. That is what they valued. They also valued the diversity of Europe, fundamental human rights and Europe's record in protecting those across all genders and races. Yet, those aspects are what are being undercut right now. I would like some of the MEPs who are on the finance committees to talk about how moneys are being redirected, sadly, away from the things that are valued, such as social cohesion and the LIFE programme, and being pushed into €800 billion in military weapons. Hungary has been mentioned a lot.”
“I would urge that another theme, where Ireland could really contribute, could be on international law and a recommitment to that being part of the Irish Presidency. Sadly, whether areas like protecting the International Criminal Court or ensuring that international law is properly reflected in relation to Palestine when it is not in terms of the ICJ, the EU loses really important credibility. Ireland could strengthen that and drive a recommitment to international law, as well as international engagement in areas such as international aid because that is part of Ireland's proud legacy. I was one of four parliamentarians who were part of the Future of Europe project. I am very sad when I look at it now. There has been a losing of the way from what was there in that Future of Europe process.”
“I welcome all the MEPs. I will begin by supporting Senator Murphy’s point on the theme of peace. The theme of peace and active neutrality should be something that is central to Ireland’s Presidency. We have had huge benefit in knowledge and learning on what actual peace building looks like. It is not simply about military security but things like Resolution 1325 on the role of women, recognising social cohesion funding, which is sadly being cut in the European Union in order to redirect it for military purposes. Things like social cohesion and Resolution 1325 are part of what peace building is. Neutrality is not ambivalent; I do not think anyone suggests it would be. Active neutrality means you are applying the same principles to all; that your actions are not based on interest but on values and that international law applies to all.”
“I urge the Minister to make sure that the role of the controller is reasserted, including in relation to section 208 of this legislation and a firming up of the principle in terms of 50% and measures to address concerns that certain kinds of performers may fall through the cracks and may not be captured in the legislation as drafted. I look forward to further engagement on Committee Stage.”
“If they have a clear remit in terms of the 50% rule, we should not be looking to the court, except in very particular circumstances of difficulties in terms of the arbitration assessment or adjudication in relation to the arbitration of disputes around levels of contribution. By having that 50% copper-fastened and by allowing the controller, who has the comparative experience right across the board, is looking at cases like this all the time and is independent, we move towards something that can be functional. The alternative is a situation whereby in order to get their share, people will have to potentially go through the Circuit Court, explain the nature of their work and their contribution and have potentially quite differential determinations being made in that kind of a context.”
“She stated: The nature of the disputes under section 208 often extends beyond the technical scope ... requiring nuanced assessments of fairness, proportionality and contributions of involved parties.[and that falls outside the expertise of the controller]. However, the counterpoint is that if we have clear legislation that is making it clear in terms of the 50% principle being applied, then we do not have a situation in which it is not really appropriate for the Circuit Court either to be trying to give an assessment of who has given most of a contribution, with the potential variability of that. If we have a controller whose job is literally this, whose focus is in looking to music and acting, to this area of production, they have the expertise for ensuring a consistency of assessment.”
“Among the points they made is that section 4 of the Bill does not track the many points of attachment in terms of determining the beneficiaries of the right. It was highlighted in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, in September 2020 there is a risk that certain performers could fall through the cracks and be unrecognised and unprotected unless that is addressed and corrected. Similarly they address the issue that if we move things away from the controller to the Circuit Court, it is bringing a much more adversarial, expensive and almost unpredictable set of measures to be applied to disputes. I am aware of an argument that has been made by the Minister of State, Deputy Niamh Smyth, previously. I am looking at a briefing provided by recorded artists, actors and performers.”
“What we and the performers are looking for is a copper-fastening of the principle of 50%, except where it has otherwise been agreed by both parties that the assumption should be that 50% of the revenues are for performers, other than in cases of associated documented costs. The core point is the 50:50 piece. Performers point out that where the 50:50 principle is in effect, working and established, the role of the controller becomes more straightforward and should, therefore, be retained. The other point we have heard from performers, artists and recorded voice performers in general relates to the role of the controller. The controller is somebody who is able to understand, fully implement and, in an independent way, apply those principles in terms of the shares of revenue.”
“I will add to what has been said in terms of the general welcome for the stated intentions of the legislation and to highlight some of the areas of concern, as outlined by my colleague, Senator Black, who has great personal experience in this area and has worked with many performers. The performers I have spoken to have highlighted their concerns that there could be inadvertent consequences from how the Bill is currently worded, in particular section 2(a) and the proposed subsection (3A). The risk is that we could end up in a scenario where there is a 25% performer outcome rather than 50%. Effectively, the revenues could get split twice – split 50:50 and then split again.”
“I highly commend all of the proposals, including the maternity proposals which I know the Minister of State did not speak to. I hope we will be able to value women and all of those who are going through the experience of a new child and give them the support they need. Wraparound supports should be available for everybody, regardless of where their community is in Ireland or their family circumstances. It should be something that is available to everybody.”
“They are not just dealing with a huge new challenge, but also perhaps dealing with a period, especially for those who are breastfeeding, where they may not have the medications they had at other times. There are many layers to this. We have heard today that each woman's needs are different. Rather than feeling one is a checklist for a doctor and public health nurse, having a whole set of supports that one can dip into at the moment in time when one needs them the most is crucial. I had facts and figures. There have been maternal death inquiries. Between 42 days and one year after pregnancy is a vulnerable time in terms of suicide. The consequences can be very severe. We want to make this a joyful, happy and supported time, as well as avoiding the kind of extreme danger which the facts show us exists.”
“People are so focused on how the baby is that it is very difficult to express what one needs at that point. It is often in the long journey between six to 12 weeks that some of the needs come through. They often arise in a situation whereby one is time poor and overwhelmed and the sleep deprivation hits. There are many other areas. People struggle to breastfeed. I struggled and was then lucky enough that it worked and kept working, but it was almost hour by hour in the early days. Lactation support is important. I have spoken to friends who have mental health issues which they struggled with prior to pregnancy. Many have had periods without their medication.”
“I want to add my voice in support of the motion. I wish to highlight this particular period when people are extremely vulnerable and a small number of supports are currently available. I know from other people's experience that one visit from a nurse was an incredible and amazing support that came in when they needed it. Other people felt they were being checked up on and examined. It was almost a case of proving to a nurse that one was able for the overwhelming task of caring for the new life for which one is responsible. The emphasis is all about putting on a brave face. I had two visits and got the support or help I needed at the second one. There is a checkup at six weeks. For so many people the focus in the first six weeks is on keeping an incredible but very fragile creature alive.”
“Outcomes that will serve humanity, not just in Ireland but internationally, rather than solely profit, need to be at the core of any agreements. It is still my preference that this be publicly led rather than overly reliant on commercial partners.”